Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology:

"...using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court."

------------

this journal is published by "National Association of Medical Examiners" (NAME)

an article in this journal purporting to survey the literature is not something that can be dismissed out of hand

against this we have:

ONE n<30 study in the Indian Journal of Pharmacology?

(my thesis supervisor always admonished his classes that "all journals are not created equal" - let's face it, bra: the IJP ain't zactly the NEJM)

and a study purporting to have found nothing more than "reference values" for "future studies"?

what else have you got?

Congratulations, you are now the fourth person by my count who found the abstract of that particular journal article, did not think they needed to bother themselves with reading the damned article, and promptly declared victory based on their laborious and thorough research.

You along with the rest of them are directed to paragraphs seven through twelve of the discussion section, which specifically cover situations exactly like the Knox case, where the details of the crime mean that you can in fact determine useful facts from stomach contents.

What else have you got?

 

[LondonJohn]

There were 5 photos taken of paper-like material with shoeprint images from Meredith's room. I do not know where these papers were located, however, I assume on the floor (due to images of shoeprints on them). I don't know where these papers originated from, what they are, and how they got to the floor.

Massei also mentions these papers, along with one (may be more) from Filomena's room in the motivations.



I wanted to add, because I forgot, Rinaldi has photos of these papers in his shoeprint presentation.

I wonder if the police ever took a reference shoe print from the shoes of Postal Police Officer Battistelli......?

 

[katy_did]

Yes, he did, according to Massei. Now, some here contest that he was misquoted by Massei, as apparently RS's appeal contests.

Here's what Massei (p 148) says:

"He [Dr. Ronchi] noted that from the witness depositions it had emerged that the victim had consumed various foods (pizza with mozzarella cheese, ice cream and apple cake) and had consumed various drinks, but not alcoholic drinks. He specified that gastric digestion is very much debatable insofar as time is concerned. The presence of 500 cubic centimetres of material in the stomach meant that a large part of the stomach had not emptied. He could not, however, say whether it had partially emptied. On this particular point he specified as follows: ‚It is true that the duodenum was empty; however, it is also true that there was some alimentary content before the ileoececal valve, alimentary content which is defined as digested ... that of the stomach was also digested for the most part and since the examination performed by the person who carried out the autopsy does not appear to have been conducted according to the prescribed techniques of forensic pathology, i.e., the ligature of the various segments etc. ... usually ligatures are done to see how far food has reached to prevent the passage ... of any ingested food into lower zones during the lifting up and turning over of the intestinal ansae loops‛ (page 21 of the transcripts)."

Hmmm, does this not rather confirm what the defence are saying? Look at the bit after that you highlighted: "usually ligatures are done..." Would that not imply that in this case, he doesn't think they were done?

And that fits in with the quote the defence provide from Ronchi's testimony: "tenuto conto che non sono state messe le legature, tenuto conto che senza le legature può capitare questo scivolamento verso il basso..." / "taking into account that the ligatures were not put in place, taking into account that without the ligatures this downward slippage may happen..."

Seems like the direct quotes from Ronchi (as opposed to Massei's interpretation of them) confirm the defence's argument. Ronchi says nothing about the ligatures having been imperfectly placed, just that he thinks they were not done at all. As you pointed out in an earlier post, both Massei and the defence suggest that he was wrong on that one.

ETA: In fact, Massei even paraphrases the same quote the defence include in the appeal, confirming that he's wrong in his later interpretation of what Ronchi said (the ligatures having been "imperfectly appositioned", etc):

He also added that, since ligatures had not been made, a certain downward slide could have occurred.

Yet Massei himself never contends that ligatures were not made (probably because the autopsy showed they were), only that they might not have been positioned correctly, using Ronchi to support his argument - except Ronchi clearly never said that. In other words, Massei speculates about the ligatures not having been made properly, but has no particular reason to think this was the case.

 

[Antony]

(msg #9467, p237)

Also, the presence of AK's DNA in the nub under the handle where it attaches to the blade indicates more a stabbing than a cutting motion with the knife, resulting in DNA deeply embedded in the plastic there, which was unable to be removed after much energetic washing, further indicating tight gripping at that point while making a stabbing motion.

This is again very far fetched and very speculative. I also highlighted an error of logical nature: even if we postulate an "energetic washing" nothing indicates that the trace was deposited before that "washing" and not after.

It is also circular reasoning. Why would there have been "energetic washing"? Because this was the murder weapon. Why do we believe it was the murder weapon? Because the traces weren't removed by "energetic washing".

This is the kind of thinking that tells us more about the person making the post than about the case.

 

[Antony]

There are 2 alternative theories that have been discussed here over the last 24 hours.
1. Meredith was seen on her cellphone by mafia drug suppliers outside the cottage who thought she was informing on them to the police
2. Antonio Aviello and Florio had mistaken the wrong house from which to steal some paintings.
Meredith was not targeted by an assassin.
She sadly happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Both of these hypotheses are worth exploring if we are challenging the case against Rudy Guede.

In the context of the present discussion, they would completely exonerate both Amanda and Raffaele, and confirm the need even more strongly for a full enquiry into how the police and prosecution conducted their investigation.

 

[Justinian2]

Congratulations, you are now the fourth person by my count who found the abstract of that particular journal article, did not think they needed to bother themselves with reading the damned article, and promptly declared victory based on their laborious and thorough research.
What else have you got?

Costs $$$ to get the article or you have to work in a medical institution or you have to have a friend/doctor who works in an institution that hasn't done you any other favors recently or who isn't too busy with 12 hour shifts.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks Charlie. I mostly accept your synopsis but I believe there was some activity over the bed after blood was drawn.

The characteristics of the mark over "P" are more aligned with an impact than with cast off. Typically, cast off breaks into individual drops that form a doted line. Another thing to look at is the web pattern that is generated when two surfaces trapping a viscous fluid are separated. The light marks to the left can only be imprints (although there is no indication of what caused them).

Further evidence of blood letting activity, that looks like a large drip of blood on the second board under the mattress. Other possible drips are on the first board and one under the bed (next to the lamp cord near the lamp).

We all assume that it was Rudy that made the marks on the wall above the night stand. But this is only because Rudy claims to have tried to write "AF". One would think though that if Rudy made this mark he would have known it wasn't anything like an "AF". If this mark could be proven to be by Meredith's hand it would be a fitting exoneration of her friend. Unfortunately, the bumbling ILE couldn't even prove that this was Meredith't blood.

Meredith might have been sitting on her bed when she was accosted, but I think the bloodstains in that area are all from secondary transfer after the murder. You can see where she was when her throat was cut. She did not rise to her feet after that point, or we would be able to tell.

You're right about stain P, however. It looks like an impact that caused some localized cast off, like a piece of bloody fabric slapping the wall, perhaps the cuff of a shirt sleeve.

I am in contact with someone who has training and experience in this area and has worked out what he thinks happened. I need to talk to him anyway, because I don't fully understand his analysis, and I will ask him about this.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Both of these hypotheses are worth exploring if we are challenging the case against Rudy Guede.

In the context of the present discussion, they would completely exonerate both Amanda and Raffaele, and confirm the need even more strongly for a full enquiry into how the police and prosecution conducted their investigation.

You might as well postulate space aliens.

Let's look at the physical evidence against Rudy, inside the room where the murder took place:

- bloody fingerprints
- bloody shoe prints
- DNA inside the victim's vagina
- DNA on two articles of the victim's clothing
- DNA on the victim's purse

This was a sloppy, unplanned rape that turned into murder because he could not control his victim, or maybe because that is what turns him on.

 

[treehorn]

Congratulations, you are now the fourth person by my count who found the abstract of that particular journal article, did not think they needed to bother themselves with reading the damned article, and promptly declared victory based on their laborious and thorough research.

You along with the rest of them are directed to paragraphs seven through twelve of the discussion section, which specifically cover situations exactly like the Knox case, where the details of the crime mean that you can in fact determine useful facts from stomach contents.

What else have you got?

"declared victory"...are you serious?

i'm just playing catch up

now i'm dying to know how many times that IJP has been cited!

after reading that excerpt from the judgment (trigood, above), i'm very, very curious to know why there's been so much debate about 'time lag' in light of the court's finding re failure to use ligatures

what am i missing here?

there's reason to question the court's finding in this regard?

 

[katy_did]

The 22:13 conncection means nothing. It is not true that the connection is stronger in tha gardn than from Meredith's window. It is not true that the 300064 cell is an unusual connection. Although I don't have the phone records of the previous week on Meredith's phone number, the judges on the basis of the records reported that connections to this cell were frequent on Meredith's phone during the previous days

I'm always a little cautious about Micheli as a source, given that the evidence he used to make a decision about Amanda and Raffaele obviously hadn't been fully explored in court at that stage (e.g. the fingerprint evidence), and since some of the most important evidence he did use wasn't as convincing when it was explored in more depth in the trial. The first thing I noticed about Micheli's discussion of Meredith's cell phone usage is just how sparse of detail it is, especially when compared both to Massei's discussion of the same subject, and the defence's discussion of it in the appeal. In fact, the brief paragraph you quoted and the one immediately before it (dealing with the Abbey Bank call) appear to be the full extent of Micheli's analysis of Meredith's cell phone usage.

On this basis, it seems to me that Micheli's vague description of the particular cell tower Meredith's phone connected with may be significant here: "Analogamente, l’mms in arrivo alle 22:13, che trova il cellulare inglese nella zona di Ponte Rio – Montelaguardia..." / "Analogously, the incoming MMS at 22:13, when the English cell phone was in the area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia..." Not once does Micheli refer to any specific cell, in contrast to Massei's very extensive discussion of the various cells: 25620, 25621, 25622, 30424, 30423, and 30064. Not a single one of these is mentioned by Micheli; all he refers to is the location of the cell: "Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia".

But when you read Massei, you find out there are three cells at the same location in Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia: 30424, 30423, and 30064. I wonder, then: could the explanation for the apparent contradiction be that Meredith's cell phone had connected with cells in that particular location before - just not with the specific cell it connected with at 22:13...? And is that why Massei never mentions anything about Meredith's phone regularly connecting with the 30064 cell?

I think this is a distinct possibility, especially given the lack of detail in Micheli's analysis, and the fact he never once specifically identifies any cell: I don't think he was working with the full information available both to Massei and the defence. So taking this into account, I'm not sure it's reliable to draw conclusions on the various cells Meredith's phone may or may not have connected with, based only on Micheli's very brief and sparsely detailed discussion.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Costs $$$ to get the article or you have to work in a medical institution or you have to have a friend/doctor who works in an institution that hasn't done you any other favors recently or who isn't too busy with 12 hour shifts.

Linking to an abstract and saying "Hey, has this been brought up three times before? If not, can anyone check it out? It looks like it might have relevant facts in it" is fine by me. If it hasn't been brought up three times already I'll check it out for you, and if it turns out to show that it's perfectly possible for a normal, healthy young woman eating a small-to-moderate meal of pizza with no stress or alcohol to have a t(lag) of five hours I'll say so.

Linking to an abstract and saying "I win! I found an abstract that seems to say what I want to hear! Gee, how dumb were you guys for missing this?", not so much.

 

[treehorn]

Costs $$$ to get the article or you have to work in a medical institution or you have to have a friend/doctor who works in an institution that hasn't done you any other favors recently or who isn't too busy with 12 hour shifts.

i sure as hell won't be paying for a glimpse at the IJP!

and somehow i don't think that particular gem is going to be sitting on the shelf of the nearest medical library

i hate to bother my bros with this, but so be it

can't wait to hear how 'thrilled' they're going to be to hear from me on this one:

"you want WHAT?!"

"from ****in' INDIA?!"

 

[katy_did]

From p 45 of the same book, regarding the Nicole Brown Simpson murder:

"Did their [Nicole's stomach contents'] state of digestion indicate that the victim had been killed within two hours of her finishing dinner, as the L.A. medical examiner suggested? or more than four hours after, as countered by Simpson's 'Dream Team' expert, former New York City medical examiner Michael Baden. When challenged, both experts [for defense and prosecution] had to admit that the quantity and quality of stomach contents had long ago been dismissed as the most unreliable of all postmortem time scales." [emphasis added]

I suppose this probably didn't help either:

A police pathologist got rid of the contents of Nicole Brown Simpson’s stomach by mistake, which would have given police a much more accurate time of death. [link]

 

[katy_did]

i sure as hell won't be paying for a glimpse at the IJP!

and somehow i don't think that particular gem is going to be sitting on the shelf of the nearest medical library

i hate to bother my bros with this, but so be it

can't wait to hear how 'thrilled' they're going to be to hear from me on this one:

"you want WHAT?!"

"from ****in' INDIA?!"

Hmmm. And was it your 'thesis advisor' who told you that journals based in India (or journals based in any non-Western country?) should be automatically dismissed? Or do you have specific information about this particular journal which indicates it's unreliable?

My supervisor never told me I didn't need to read things published on my subject outside Western countries. He told me only that I had to read everything that had been published on the subject. I shall be complaining.

 

[treehorn]

ETA: In fact, Massei even paraphrases the same quote the defence include in the appeal, confirming that he's wrong in his later interpretation of what Ronchi said (the ligatures having been "imperfectly appositioned", etc):

Yet Massei himself never contends that ligatures were not made (probably because the autopsy showed they were), only that they might not have been positioned correctly, using Ronchi to support his argument - except Ronchi clearly never said that. In other words, Massei speculates about the ligatures not having been made properly, but has no particular reason to think this was the case.

--------------------------


"probably":

so you are speculating?


"has no particular reason to think":

on what basis do you make this conclusion?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

after reading that excerpt from the judgment (trigood, above), i'm very, very curious to know why there's been so much debate about 'time lag' in light of the court's finding re failure to use ligatures

what am i missing here?

there's reason to question the court's finding in this regard?

My current understanding is that Ronchi made some statements to the effect that ligatures were not used (Massei 148), which is highly curious in light of the fact that they were in fact used.

Ronchi seems to have been well aware that if Dr Lalli had not somehow misplaced food which was in Meredith's duodenum, then Meredith didn't die at 23:30. Ronchi came up with the story, in court, that no ligatures were used and speculated that Dr Lalli might have manually squeezed all the material in Meredith's duodenum down five meters of intestine to the very end, which would beggar belief even if ligatures were not used.

So why does Massei come up with his own fairy story about improperly applied liagtures? That seems to be because Massei saw the autopsy video where ligatures were clearly applied. Whoops. I guess Ronchi's memory must have been going, right? Because otherwise it looks a bit like perjury. It's also a curious bit of writing by Massei, because he quotes Ronchi making statements he knows are false, but leaves the reader assuming those statements are true. If you just read p148 and don't read p178, you come away with the distinct impression no ligatures were used. Hmm.

Anyway, Massei was left in the awkward spot of knowing that ligatures were applied, and knowing that if there was no food in Meredith's duodenum and Dr Lalli hadn't totally botched the autopsy then she didn't die at 23:30, but having to justify the verdict that she did indeed die at 23:30. Thus his own invention of "improperly applied" ligatures, which we see on Page 178 of the Massei report. You'll notice that by page 178 the story about ligatures not being used has vanished, since Massei can quote other people getting it wrong but can't make such false factual statements himself.

 

[Mary_H]

i sure as hell won't be paying for a glimpse at the IJP!

and somehow i don't think that particular gem is going to be sitting on the shelf of the nearest medical library

i hate to bother my bros with this, but so be it

can't wait to hear how 'thrilled' they're going to be to hear from me on this one:

"you want WHAT?!"

"from xxxxxxx INDIA?!"

Do you have something against India, treehorn?

 

[katy_did]

--------------------------


"probably"

so you are speculating?

I'm speculating as to the reasons why Massei had to distort Ronchi's testimony: i.e. he says Ronchi hypothesized that the ligatures had been positioned incorrectly in some way. Massei's own summary of the testimony indicates that Ronchi never said this, but rather that he thought ligatures had not been made at all.

As Trigood suggested earlier, Massei himself indicates that they were made, since he resorts to speculating that maybe they were not made properly. The defence also state clearly that they were made, by pointing to the autopsy video.

So I'm theorizing that maybe the reason Massei distorts Ronchi's testimony is that - based on the autopsy video - he knew Ronchi was wrong about the ligatures not having been made. I am not speculating on whether the video shows ligatures being made, since the defence state that it does, and since Massei also appears to indicate this is the case.

"has no particular reason to think":

on what basis do you make this conclusion?

On the basis that Massei uses Ronchi to back up his speculation that ligatures were not made properly, but it turns out Ronchi didn't say that. Hence, there is nothing to support his hypothesis.

 

[treehorn]

Hmmm. And was it your 'thesis advisor' who told you that journals based in India (or journals based in any non-Western country?) should be automatically dismissed? Or do you have specific information about this particular journal which indicates it's unreliable?

My supervisor never told me I didn't need to read things published on my subject outside Western countries. He told me only that I had to read everything that had been published on the subject. I shall be complaining.

are you putting words in my mouth?

i never used the phrase "non-Western"

are you suggesting that the IJP is on par with, say, JAMA or NEJM?

 

[Mary_H]

are you putting words in my mouth?

i never used the phrase "non-Western"

are you suggesting that the IJP is on par with, say, JAMA or NEJM?

Are you suggesting it isn't?