Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Nobody is trying to prove the case on the basis of the digestive evidence alone. It's not as though the digestive evidence stands in opposition to other evidence. Instead, it fits as part of a pattern that also includes:

Well, aside from your position, I respectfully point out that Kevin Lowe expressed himself in very different terms: as for my comment saying I would prefer to speak of other topic first, he said that the topic of time of death instead should be dealt with before and all the others become "irrelevant" in comparison. He made clear that this single argument should come before the othrs since alone it would cause the other evidence to disappear and should force everybody to declare "game over". So Kevin Lowen was following a reasoning very different from yours. You are building a picture in which the likeliness time of death has merely the value of suggesting element, its meaning due to its being part of a pattern.

 

[isotope1]

Bearing in mind that the first is a shoe print and the second a bare footprint, how do (1) and (2) logically lead to (3)...?

I could have been clearer I guess, sorry. The reasoning would be that RG stayed in his shoes the whole time, that is never moved to the bathroom or other rooms (with bloodied shoes), therefore by force someone else had to leave the footprint. There don't appear to be prints (shoe or otherwise) leading to or from the small bathroom I believe.

thanks!

 

[piktor]

If so, what time do you believe it was when she (Nara) heard this noise?

Ms. Nara had no chronometer with her. She testified she heard a terrible scream. Ms. Monnacchia also heard a terrible scream that night and she, too, had no chronometer or audiometer to gauge the decibel digit to write down for the scientifically inclined.

They both testified in good faith and their testimony is part of the investigation. They were believable to the people hearing the case in Perugia.

That's as scientific an honest lay witness will get. It would be truly unbelievable if these two ladies had said any different.

 

[Machiavelli]

The argument Massei puts forward is, scientifically, complete garbage: i.e. the idea that as long as more loci match than not, we can claim that the profile matches the suspect. This is the argument Massei uses to dismiss Tagliabracci's position that some of the loci don't match's Sollecito's profile, and it's utter nonsense.

But I don't think it's utter nonsense. In fact in my reading this is *not* the actual Massei's argument. These are not the terms in which he expresses himself. Massei's argument is that that the match of all Raffaele's loci is an overwhelming element in comparison to the proposed objections. The dispute on a small number of loci doesn't have the force, in terms of probability, to undermine the finding by Patrizia Stefanoni of a match with all loci of Raffaele's profile.

 

[Machiavelli]

The plot thickens.

If that was so proven, would you also still consider the boyfriend (Raf) guilty of murder

Yes, both.

The concept of "guilty" has here the meaning of who can be assigned the legal responsability of something. Amanda and Raffaele are both equally reponsible as long as they "cover" each other or the murderer.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings all,
On a HOT Fall day here in Los Angeles,
I was just driving behind a car that had a Pepperdine University sticker on its back window.

So for a moment I thought of retired F.B.I. agent Mr. Steve Moore.
He had originally, as did I also, thought that Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito were guilty as charged when arrested and then in his case, convicted.
That was until his wife, after watching a CBS News show, 48 Hours, challenged him to dig deeper into the case, for she thought these 2 individuals were innocent.

As most that post here on this thread know,
Mr. Moore now believes that an injustice has been done in Perugia, Italy with the convictions of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for participating in the brutal stabbing death of Miss Meredith Kercher, and has been speaking out againt this.

Just recently, he was fired from Pepperdine University for continuously speaking out PUBLICLY against their convictions.
WOW!
The man MUST truly believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent
of any involvement in Miss Kercher's murder to simply not back off and shut up about this injustice!

More here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018133-504083.html

Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Nice letter RoseMontague!

 

[katy_did]

But I don't think it's utter nonsense. In fact in my reading this is *not* the actual Massei's argument. These are not the terms in which he expresses himself. Massei's argument is that that the match of all Raffaele's loci is an overwhelming element in comparison to the proposed objections. The dispute on a small number of loci doesn't have the force, in terms of probability, to undermine the finding by Patrizia Stefanoni of a match with all loci of Raffaele's profile.

But this is exactly Massei's argument, as halides quoted: he says that even if we were to accept that six of the loci don't match, there are still twelve that do, and that's good enough! And he justifies this by quoting Tagliabracci's statement that they used to make genetic matches with only six loci, before the more advanced testing kits were available - completely missing the point that whether you're testing with six loci or sixteen, all of them have to match.

I would agree that Massei believes Stefanoni's claim that all the loci match, rather than Tagliabracci's assertion that six of them don't. But the point is that the reasoning he uses to justify this belief is complete and utter unscientific garbage. And in turn, this means his reason for believing Stefanoni over Tagliabracci is nothing short of an act of faith - his faulty reasoning allows him to avoid the messy task of explaining why he believes one expert over the other...

 

[katy_did]

I could have been clearer I guess, sorry. The reasoning would be that RG stayed in his shoes the whole time, that is never moved to the bathroom or other rooms (with bloodied shoes), therefore by force someone else had to leave the footprint. There don't appear to be prints (shoe or otherwise) leading to or from the small bathroom I believe.

thanks!

Thanks for the explanation. Well, I guess if we assume (1) that Rudy never removed his shoes, and (2) that everywhere he walked he left traces of blood, the blood having gotten onto the soles of his shoes immediately as the attack happened, then your logic would be reasonable (in fact, irrefutable!). But I'm not sure that either of those assumptions have particularly solid foundations...

 

[Malkmus]

On the subject of Nara, it's interesting that Massei places 'the scream' at 23:30 on no other basis than that Nara said she usually got up two hours after she took her tablets to go to the bathroom (one wonders how she knew, if she wasn't in the habit of looking at the clock, not even after hearing a 'scream of death'). Nara also said that she went out to the shops to get bread at about 11 a.m. the day after she heard the scream, and that this is when she heard some young people shouting about how a girl was killed in the cottage, and that shortly after she saw posters with news of the murder at the newsstand. She knew it was 11, because she always goes out about that time. Kind of like how she knew the scream was at 23:30, because she always wakes up around that time.

She also says she saw Amanda and Raffaele later that same afternoon in the parking lot opposite the cottage, looking over at the house. Given her advance knowledge of the crime and her faux sightings of Amanda and Raffaele, I'm starting to get a little suspicious of Nara.

If this is true, that is the biggest reason to doubt her testimony. It's akin to saying "Yes, I heard a scream last night, and later the following day I saw a sasquatch."

 

[Chris C]

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.

I walk everyday and I do a 16 minute mile. Though that is a fast pace.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You are building a picture in which the likeliness time of death has merely the value of suggesting element, its meaning due to its being part of a pattern.

No. The meaning of the digestive evidence is due to the consensus of forensic pathologists regarding how long a meal remains in the stomach. That does not change depending on other factors. But the other factors I mention all corroborate the digestive evidence. They show that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a certain type of sexual homicide for which countless precedents exist.

I was glad Quadraginta posed the question he did about MacDonald, because it allowed me to make a certain point: crimes fit known patterns. There are rare crimes, like those committed by Jeffrey Dahmer or Justina Morley, to cite widely divergent genres, but even they fit known patterns and correspond to certain types of offenders. What happened to Meredith is statistically rare because there are damn few people, outside of war zones, who will do that to another human being. And the ones who do are often young men like Rudy Guede, who can't seem to get their lives together and are frustrated. Young women with no history of aggressive behavior don't suddenly think, "ok. I'm stoned, I'm bored, I feel like getting some kicks, so I'll kill my roommate."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bathmat

I could have been clearer I guess, sorry. The reasoning would be that RG stayed in his shoes the whole time, that is never moved to the bathroom or other rooms (with bloodied shoes), therefore by force someone else had to leave the footprint. There don't appear to be prints (shoe or otherwise) leading to or from the small bathroom I believe.

thanks!

isotope,

Charlie Wilkes has explained it here by the following scenario: Guede took off his shoe to clean blood. At some point he stepped into bloody water and put his foot on the bathmat or onto a towel on top of the bathmat making the print. Then he put his shoe back on and went back into the bedroom. Hope this helps.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

each loci is independent

But I don't think it's utter nonsense. In fact in my reading this is *not* the actual Massei's argument. These are not the terms in which he expresses himself. Massei's argument is that that the match of all Raffaele's loci is an overwhelming element in comparison to the proposed objections. The dispute on a small number of loci doesn't have the force, in terms of probability, to undermine the finding by Patrizia Stefanoni of a match with all loci of Raffaele's profile.

Machiavelli,

Let me quote from Raffaele’s appeal (pp. 143-144), which nails it:

“If only six loci had been analysed, in order to state that the two profiles belong to the same person, we should find all six loci compatible. The difference between an investigation done with 6 loci and an investigation done with 16 loci is the strength of our confirmation that the trace belongs to the same subject: with sixteen loci we are dealing with a much more peremptory assertion, since the probability of finding one other person in the general population who by chance had the same genetic profile is determined by the number of loci analysed.

If, however, even one single locus (of the six or sixteen examined) gives an incompatible result between the profile of the suspect and that of the trace, it is immediately excluded; that is, the two profiles are different and it must be concluded that the trace was not left by that subject.

The statements of the judgment on this point highlight an ignorance of this fundamental rule of forensic genetics.”

Six loci used to constitute a profile in England and apparently elsewhere in Europe. But whether six, ten, or sixteen loci are used, a person is excluded if only one loci does not match. The majority does not rule here; the vote must be unanimous.

 

[katy_did]

If this is true, that is the biggest reason to doubt her testimony. It's akin to saying "Yes, I heard a scream last night, and later the following day I saw a sasquatch."

Good analogy.

A quick translation from page 27 of Sollecito's appeal:

Signora Capezzali declared, further, that once she received the news from the aforementioned young people [the ones who told her at 11 in the morning that a girl had been murdered], she looked out of the window, noting not only the ambulances and the police, but even Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were watching the house on Via della Pergola from the balustrade of the car park: "They were on the balustrade of the car park and I was on my terrace, a few metres from them. Q: You saw them that morning? A: Yes, the morning that the dead girl was still inside the house.

La signora Capezzali ha dichiarato, inoltre, che non appena ha ricevuto la notizia dai predetti ragazzi, si è affacciata dalla finestra, notando non solo le ambulanze e la polizia ma, addirittura, Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito che guardavano la casa di Via della Pergola dalla balaustra del parcheggio: “Erano sulla balaustra del parcheggio ed io ero sulla mia terrazza, a pochi metri da loro. D: La mattina questo, lei li ha visti? R: Si, la mattina che ancora la ragazza morta era dentro la casa.

I think 'balustrade' here means the area of the car park bordered by a railing, opposite the house.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

help me out here

Yes, both.

The concept of "guilty" has here the meaning of who can be assigned the legal responsability of something. Amanda and Raffaele are both equally reponsible as long as they "cover" each other or the murderer.

Machiavelli,

I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda. Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself, let us say he did for the sake of argument. If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent. Yet you say otherwise. Would you please explain?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Machiavelli,

Let me quote from Raffaele’s appeal (pp. 143-144), which nails it:

“If only six loci had been analysed, in order to state that the two profiles belong to the same person, we should find all six loci compatible. The difference between an investigation done with 6 loci and an investigation done with 16 loci is the strength of our confirmation that the trace belongs to the same subject: with sixteen loci we are dealing with a much more peremptory assertion, since the probability of finding one other person in the general population who by chance had the same genetic profile is determined by the number of loci analysed.

If, however, even one single locus (of the six or sixteen examined) gives an incompatible result between the profile of the suspect and that of the trace, it is immediately excluded; that is, the two profiles are different and it must be concluded that the trace was not left by that subject.

The statements of the judgment on this point highlight an ignorance of this fundamental rule of forensic genetics.”

Six loci used to constitute a profile in England and apparently elsewhere in Europe. But whether six, ten, or sixteen loci are used, a person is excluded if only one loci does not match. The majority does not rule here; the vote must be unanimous.

Here is a really interesting paper that explains much of DNA matches and partial profiles:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf

 

[katy_did]

LJ, if it's such a smoking gun, why do you think Amanda's appeal summary, as written by Bruce, doesn't even touch on this subject? There appears to be something made of each aspect of the trial, witnesses and evidence, but unless I simply missed it no mention is made of the stomach contents and it's ability to prove their innocence. Raffaele's does mention it on the other hand.

I think this is because the lawyers were co-ordinating their arguments, so as not to repeat each other. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be two separate appeals saying the same thing. This is my impression from reading them, anyway - even where they deal with the same issue, they do so using different arguments, different quotes, etc.

I guess I'll know it when I see it Kevin. I will happily feel relief and gladness for Amanda and Raffaele if something turns up to unequivocally exonerate them and I will wholeheartedly support their being compensated for their lost years. I don’t hate them and I’m open to changing my mind if something conclusive comes along. So far it hasn’t.

I would feel a similar relief if there were some crucial bit of evidence which emerged to prove their guilt - that would certainly be preferable to two innocent people being locked up. I find it odd, though, that you seem to be looking for something conclusive to unequivocally exonerate them... Shouldn't the emphasis rather be on whether or not there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not on whether there's rock solid evidence they didn't do it?

Your argument on stomach contents proving she died at 9:10 or very shortly before or after doesn’t convince me either because it seems too narrow in focus and unsupported by the majority of the literature out there regardless of how many times you shout about it being peer reviewed and post your two or three links. What makes your links and opinions any better than all the other opinions and links by numerous other people, also published in scientific journals, who warn over and over about using stomach contents as reliable proof of anything.

But what literature are you talking about? I've been waiting for ages for some evidence to emerge which contradicts what Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have been saying, but I haven't yet seen any: so far the closest thing has been Machiavelli's cite that after an extremely large meal (1000+ calories) it might take as much as five hours for 40% of the gastric contents to empty. But in this case, we know on the one hand that it's highly unlikely Meredith ate as much as that (unless she pretty much ate the entire pizza and apple crumble herself...) and on the other that her stomach hadn't even begun to empty. Another abstract cited by someone suggested "an unacceptable degree of imprecision" using stomach contents to determine time of death. Well yes, probably that's generally true, given that you can only estimate T.O.D. to within 3-4 hours, which is fairly imprecise. But not in this case, as has been said over and over again, because we know Meredith was alive for the first three of those hours.

Personally, I think all the other judges (aside from Massei) plus the coroner were not too far off the mark: an estimated T.O.D. of approximately 22:00, +/- an hour. Given that it seems the meal was over at 8, while Matteini at least bases her estimate only on the fact it finished before 9, I think the T.O.D. can be moved back further to at least 21:45, with the fatal wounds having been made at around 21:35 (both +/- an hour, of course). Using this logic and combining it with the fact there were people outside the cottage gate from around 22:30-23:30, the last half hour of this time span can probably be ruled out, meaning death must have occurred before 22:30.

 

[piktor]

isotope,

Guede took off his shoe to clean blood. At some point he stepped into bloody water and put his foot on the bathmat or onto a towel on top of the bathmat making the print. Then he put his shoe back on and went back into the bedroom. Hope this helps.

He also took care to clean up all bathroom surfaces, including the missing heel portion on the bathroom's tile floor, except for blood traces of the victim and Knox's. He also managed to shrink the bathmat print to Sollecito's foot size and shape.

As in other scenarios in the cottage, "if it makes little sense but Guede is in the mix, then it's OK" narrative is acceptable.

If it applies to the other two defendants, then it is in line with the "everybody was wrong" scenario.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Here is a really interesting paper that explains much of DNA matches and partial profiles:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf

And after reading this, I have a question. Is there any way to put a statistic on Raffaele's match? Like 1 in 75,000 or 1 in 400 or whatever? Does anyone know exactly which alleles matched and which didn't?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think this is because the lawyers were co-ordinating their arguments, so as not to repeat each other. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be two separate appeals saying the same thing. This is my impression from reading them, anyway - even where they deal with the same issue, they do so using different arguments, different quotes, etc.



I would feel a similar relief if there were some crucial bit of evidence which emerged to prove their guilt - that would certainly be preferable to two innocent people being locked up. I find it odd, though, that you seem to be looking for something conclusive to unequivocally exonerate them... Shouldn't the emphasis rather be on whether or not there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not on whether there's rock solid evidence they didn't do it?



But what literature are you talking about? I've been waiting for ages for some evidence to emerge which contradicts what Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have been saying, but I haven't yet seen any: so far the closest thing has been Machiavelli's cite that after an extremely large meal (1000+ calories) it might take as much as five hours for 40% of the gastric contents to empty. But in this case, we know on the one hand that it's highly unlikely Meredith ate as much as that (unless she pretty much ate the entire pizza and apple crumble herself...) and on the other that her stomach hadn't even begun to empty. Another abstract cited by someone suggested "an unacceptable degree of imprecision" using stomach contents to determine time of death. Well yes, probably that's generally true, given that you can only estimate T.O.D. to within 3-4 hours, which is fairly imprecise. But not in this case, as has been said over and over again, because we know Meredith was alive for the first three of those hours.

Personally, I think all the other judges (aside from Massei) plus the coroner were not too far off the mark: an estimated T.O.D. of approximately 22:00, +/- an hour. Given that it seems the meal was over at 8, while Matteini at least bases her estimate only on the fact it finished before 9, I think the T.O.D. can be moved back further to at least 21:45, with the fatal wounds having been made at around 21:35 (both +/- an hour, of course). Using this logic and combining it with the fact there were people outside the cottage gate from around 22:30-23:30, the last half hour of this time span can probably be ruled out, meaning death must have occurred before 22:30.

Good points well made - although I think that the probability curve lends itself to a ToD well before 10pm.

This post also reminded me of something I'd forgotten in riposte to the issue of how much Meredith ate. As you say, some were arguing that maybe Meredith ate a gargantuan meal (secretly gorging on pizza while nobody was watching?), and that this may have retarded her T(lag).

Well, fortunately we have a pretty good idea of how much Meredith ate that evening, and not only because of the testimony of her English friends. We also have the colume of her stomach contents as measured at the autopsy. There was around 500ml of semi-solid matter in her stomach, which is entirely consistent with a small-to-moderate sized meal, including both the pizza and the apple crumble.