Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

I know you won't care, if you decided you entrust Candace's work.
Anyway, from the cottage’s gate to the centre of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, also considering the stairs and the turn at the entrance of the basketball court, the walk is 56 metres.

There are 29 meters between the gate and the house door.
So, from the cottage’s door to the same spot, the overall walk is 85 metres.

A person walks normally at a speed between 4 and 7 kilometres per hour. This is the speed you will have walking around slowly, like walking the dog. It means that, in a tranquil walk, 5 minutes correspond to 420-450 metres in a fairly slow mode.

In one minute, walking at 5 kilometres per hour, you walk for 84 metres.
So there is only one minute from the very entrance of the house to the centre of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana.
Thus it takes 40 seconds to walk from the centre of Piazza Grimana’s basketball to the cottage gate. Walking slowly.

Machiavelli, thanks for the measurements. That helps assess how long it truly takes to walk that distance. I will agree that it takes both substantially less than 5 minutes and substantially more than 5 seconds to walk that distance. I would say based on what you have presented that the simplest way to put it is that it's about a minute. Perhaps Candace should have said it is just a brief walk instead of 5 minutes, although I don't think when she wrote that it was to give readers an exact number of how long it takes, and instead to simply imply that it was not a long walk.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) We know for sure that the meal was small-to-moderate in size […]

2) We know for sure that between around 6.00pm and 8.45pm, […] even extreme terror only leads to a slowing of the digestion process, and not its complete cessation. […]

3) Meredith's English friends testified that no alcohol whatsoever was drunk while Meredith was at their house between around 4pm and 8.45pm. […] Either way, there was no alcohol in her digestive system for at least the first 2.5 hours after the start of her pizza meal.

4) What time do you think that Meredith's pizza meal started? […]

5) The apple pie meal would not have affected the passage of the earlier pizza meal through Meredith's digestive system. This has been discussed and referenced here before. […]

6) Meredith's pizza meal was a very common mixed-ingredient meal, consisting of simple carbohydrate, protein and fat, and containing fibrous vegetable matter […]

7) The state of digestion of the food in Meredith's stomach was documented by Dr Lalli. He reported finding recognisable pieces of cheese matter still present […]

Reporting again and again this conclusion is useless, I already knew these proposed assumptions, examined facts and rejected them. The above required conditions are not proven, some are not true, and the required parameters are too many.
Moreover you lost by the way the most important one: the time of death makes no difference. Nara and Antonella Monacchia are well compatible with 22:00. Amanda and Raffaele don't have an alibi at any time.

 

[RoseMontague]

I take from it, that he is a gentleman, and that he takes pride in his profession, and that he respects the Court system, in his country.

I believe he also takes pride in his appeal. That's the one where he rips the Massei judgment to pieces and flushes it down the toilet (with a respectful salute as it goes down the drain, probably singing some Italian national song at the same time).

 

[Mary_H]

With all due respect to a poster of your longevity and one probably possessing "ever so" much more knowledge of protocal here...

I was admonished by another member for using the terminology "FOAKer" here. As a neophyte, I readily concurred that it might be, as noted in the exchange, probably no less offensive than the term 'guilters'

Was I mistaken about offensiveness, protocol, longevity endowed poster privileges and/or all the above ??

capealadin's latest post, in which she uses the term "innocenters," reminded me I meant to respond to this.

"Guilter" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. I mean, you guys do favor the position that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, right? It's just reflects a fact. Innocenters is the opposite, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to represent the advocacy position.

I think the other poster went into some detail about why "FOAKer" is offensive (although, personally, I don't care what anybody calls me). Not only does it refer to a certain epithet that is not considered complimentary, but it also implies that all of Amanda and Raffaele's advocates are members of the Friends of Amanda, and that is not the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

and substantially more than 5 seconds to walk that distance.

I don't know why you mention "5 seconds", if you are thinking at thougthful's comment if think it's obvious it was an ironic line.

 

[el buscador]

Reporting again and again this conclusion is useless, I already knew these proposed assumptions, examined facts and rejected them. The above required conditions are not proven, some are not true, and the required parameters are too many.
Moreover you lost by the way the most important one: the time of death makes no difference. Nara and Antonella Monacchia are well compatible with 22:00. Amanda and Raffaele don't have an alibi at any time.

If you agree on an earlier time of death why bother even arguing about this. Isn't it really a mote point?

 

[LondonJohn]

Reporting again and again this conclusion is useless, I already knew these proposed assumptions, examined facts and rejected them. The above required conditions are not proven, some are not true, and the required parameters are too many.
Moreover you lost by the way the most important one: the time of death makes no difference. Nara and Antonella Monacchia are well compatible with 22:00. Amanda and Raffaele don't have an alibi at any time.

Ahhh.... I see the new standard line on the stomach/duodenum contents is "there are too many parameters". You list some of these parameters, I try to evaluate them and discount them or factor them in, then you simply say "ah, but there are more parameters!"

I think I understand the science. You reject my level of understanding. And there the conversation will cease. Let's see what happens in the appeal, eh?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, I do not.
I contest your entry data. I contest your assmptions from their foundation. I reject the certainity that we can consider that as a normal "moredate size meal"; I reject the clause of "normal circumstances" (also because my theory is based on the assumption that Amanda and Rudy Guede or whoever are already coming at the cottage at the time about when Meredith comes in, and that Meredith is a non norml situation since around 21:00); I reject the absence of alchohol, because there is evidence of the contrary.
So I reject all the first three conditions that you mention as necessary for your conclusion. This implies it is obvious I am not going to take your conclusions.

Whatever. Rejecting facts does not make them go away. Nor is anyone here likely to reconsider their views on these factual matters just because you reject them.

If you have evidence that we have these factual matters wrong (or that Raffaele and Amanda could possibly have been involved in ambushing Meredith at 21:00, or if you even have a story which is remotely plausible that explains how and why they would do such a thing) then present it.

Until then you are merely testifying about your personal religious convictions.

Moreover, I reject even further asumptions, like the time of the last meal, which you consider as certain and equivalent to 18:00 - 18:30, while I don't.

Again, unless and until your present some evidence or intelligent argument your rejection has no weight here.

I reject the assumption that a 23:30 time would be necessary to fit with witnesses and evidence, and this is a capital difference between my way of thinking and your argument.

Also between you, Massei and Mignini. Since you have yet to present a coherent, sensible theory that fits with an earlier time of death I maintain my current skepticism that any such theory exists.

Finally, I observe that you do not consider/ do not search in scientifc studies the possible influence on digestion time of further variants, namely: the subsequnt ingestion of other meal entries after some time, the variants due to fibers and kind of meal/food components, the actual advanced status of digestion (so defined in reports) found in Meredith's stomach.

You have not named any such studies that show that a t(lag) of five hours or more in the case of a small-to-moderate sized meal eaten by a healthy adult woman under normal circumstances with no alcohol is plausible.

As has been already explained to you several times, showing that various other factors can cause minor variations in t(lag) does not get you to the conclusion that a t(lag) of five hours or more in the case of a small-to-moderate sized meal eaten by a healthy adult woman under normal circumstances with no alcohol is possible, any more than collecting a number of factors which influence a person's adult height gets you to the conclusion that someone can be four metres tall.

 

[LondonJohn]

capealadin's latest post, in which she uses the term "innocenters," reminded me I meant to respond to this.

"Guilter" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. I mean, you guys do favor the position that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, right? It's just reflects a fact. Innocenters is the opposite, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to represent the advocacy position.

I think the other poster went into some detail about why "FOAKer" is offensive (although, personally, I don't care what anybody calls me). Not only does it refer to a certain epithet that is not considered complimentary, but it also implies that all of Amanda and Raffaele's advocates are members of the Friends of Amanda, and that is not the case.

Exactly. I am not a Friend Of Amanda, or even a friend of Amanda. I have no cause to fight, or agenda to promote. I simply happen to think that the guilty verdicts for Knox and Sollecito in the first trial may well be unsafe, and find it interesting to share and discuss views on this case. Nothing more or less than that.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

.

The point is that there are too many variables including those that would be unknown. That is why it is not regarded as reliable. One would not be able to discover a predictable curve, similar to you not being able to squash your desired meanings into Meredith's PM results.

You have it exactly backwards: We are determining what the evidence says and working forward from there. There are no "desired meanings". I hope that helps.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't know why you mention "5 seconds", if you are thinking at thougthful's comment if think it's obvious it was an ironic line.

Much like Candace's "5 minutes" wasn't supposed to be an exact measurement either.

 

[Machiavelli]

But that is just one of many examples. I have written a summary of this case, and here is an excerpt:

But I don't quite understand the meaning you attribute to this episode (or episodes?).
Who is writing makes very judgemental assertions ("triumphantly presented to the press"). But the presentation to the press was rather a notification to the defence, and investigators at the moment did actually believe the book was a piece of evidence. When it turnd not to be, it was ruled out by the police thmselves.
I actually don't see anything strange in this, but perhaps some foreigners are shocked by the fact that in Italy this search for evidence during investigation practically takes place before the public audience.

 

[Machiavelli]

Until then you are merely testifying about your personal religious convictions.

I am merely testifying my convictions, and I am available to give reasons for them. But on this particular point I am merely rejecting others convictions due to their lack of proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

But I don't quite understand the meaning you attribute to this episode (or episodes?).
Who is writing makes very judgemental assertions ("triumphantly presented to the press"). But the presentation to the press was rather a notification to the defence, and investigators at the moment did actually believe the book was a piece of evidence. When it turnd not to be, it was ruled out by the police thmselves.
I actually don't see anything strange in this, but perhaps some foreigners are shocked by the fact that in Italy this search for evidence during investigation practically takes place before the public audience.

Why did the investigators believe the German Harry Potter book found in the girls' cottage to be significant (and indicative of lying by Knox), when they only discovered it and inventoried it after they'd discovered the other German Harry Potter book (which fitted perfectly with Knox's version of events) at Sollecito's apartment? Are you suggesting that this was simply police/prosecution incompetence rather than a deliberate intent to mislead the media?

 

[RoseMontague]

But I don't quite understand the meaning you attribute to this episode (or episodes?).
Who is writing makes very judgemental assertions ("triumphantly presented to the press"). But the presentation to the press was rather a notification to the defence, and investigators at the moment did actually believe the book was a piece of evidence. When it turnd not to be, it was ruled out by the police thmselves.
I actually don't see anything strange in this, but perhaps some foreigners are shocked by the fact that in Italy this search for evidence during investigation practically takes place before the public audience.

I wonder if it got the same type of fanfare when it was ruled out as it did when this telling piece of evidence was "discovered". I still see claims of bleach receipts and washing machines still running to this day.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have not named any such studies that show that a t(lag) of five hours or more in the case of a small-to-moderate sized meal eaten by a healthy adult woman under normal circumstances with no alcohol is plausible.

And I will never attempt to fulfil such request because I consider it a scientifically wrong request since not pertinent to the case. In other words, I consider it "a straw man".

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you suggesting that this was simply police/prosecution incompetence rather than a deliberate intent to mislead the media?

Yes, I am suggesting it was primarily police(/prosecution?) incompetence rather than a deliberate intent to mislead the media.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please respond to the citations you were given

I'm not going to deal with hypothesis, can't remember who, no evidence submitted. I was not given reliable cites, (which is deemed so important). In fact the silence is rather deafening. I wrote about Ghirga's staement. I asked for evidence that Ms. Popovic had credentials pertaining to the fact that she found Amanda normal. I asked how long she'd known Amanda, if she had ACTUALLY seen her. I asked who had access to Raff's apartment, some evidence that it was the police. Who were they? I don't follow your reasoning at all, that the prosecutor or attorneys are *nervous* of the police. Attorneys and prosecurors cross examing police all the time. I asked for evidence where Ghirga was in jeapordy, should he say something bad about the trial. In fact, he didn't have to say anything. Yet, he did. So, reliable cites are asked (DEMANDED) for the *guilters)*...but the innocenters can go about, with hypothesis, don't know names..etc. I am disappointed, Halides, that you have tried to take me around THE MULBERRY BUSH, ignoring the nitty gritty of what I asked for. Do you think I'm so easily bamboozled? This wondering off in circles, rather than staying on point?

Thank you Mary, for the tip on using quotes. That's very useful for everyone. I came here in good faith, have been insulted by Chris C, not afforded the same standard as the innocenters. It's obvious that posters like me are not welcome. And not afforded cites, on point answers, which is claimed to be necessary to debate. Whatever the outcome, may none of us know the tragedy of the Kerchers. Cheers.

capealadin,

In message 8817 you wrote, "And by the way, Halides, Ghirga is in a perfect position to talk about the Court system, as he knows how it works. Can you cite where in Italy, a lawyer would be in jeapordy if he did so?"

In message 8924 you wrote, "Can you name the police who were supposedly there? What time did the police arrive, and what time did they leave?"

I do not have information on the names of the police or when they were there, and I do not know anyone who does have this information. Did you read the article by Andrea Vogt? Did you see the part where she wrote, "it further damages the credibility of investigators," implying that the police were there? Can you think of anyone else who had access? Before you say that maybe the elder Mr. Sollecito did, I would urge you to remember that he was out of town.

You are ignoring the citations I have given you on the Committee to Protect Journalists, the other citation that cover Stardust, and the number of people PM Mignini has sued. Do you think that this committee is wrong? Why do you think that Mr. Maori did not state that the police accessed the fiies?

Some of your questions directly addressed what Mr. Ghirga said, but others were more general (see highlighted portion above). I grant that my answer was indirect. Yet, the cumulative effect of the citations builds the case that one cannot be too bold in one's criticisms of some figures in ILE. You don't have to agree with my assessment, but the favor of giving it due consideration is requested.

I don't have any information on Ms. Popovic other than what I wrote; therefore, I did not respond to this question.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I still see claims of bleach receipts and washing machines still running to this day.

Indeed. I remember PMF admin repeating this lie not long ago, when I was briefly posting there.

 

[bucketoftea]

Indeed. I remember PMF admin repeating this lie not long ago, when I was briefly posting there.

Please cite. I have seen no such.