Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

A With all due respect ...No, were at an impasse.

Wow, that was fast.

B Evidence by anecdote has overrun its course here - that's my point.

Analogies aren't anecdotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#cite_note-2

You've only been here for 60 posts.

C With all due respect ...No, its irrelevant , lets see a treatment of where & how the appeal can overturn the original judgment.<snip>

Go for it.

 

[Chris C]

Quote: "Stomachs dont empty like drains. They just dont open up and let it all in the duodenum at once. When the food hits its stage of digestion in the stomach it moves to the next stage, regardless of the state of the rest of the meal. In other words it gradually empties. "


I know - I've been around for all the KL T(lag) posts. But it is true that certain things such as the size of the meal, stress, activity, and even the contents of the meal (sugar, carbs, etc.) slow the process. Before Kevin jumps in to pontificate, I will state I do not beleive the ToD was as late as the prosecution claims it was. All I am stating is the size of Meredith's meal has been claimed here on JREF as "small to moderate" but in comparison to the oldest child mentioned in the letter referenced by Halides1, MK's meal could have been larger than "small to moderate".

See thats the whole point. If you dont believe meredith died when the prosecution claims then there are problems.

1. Scream didn't happen.
2. Homeless guys testimony is wrong.
3. People in car don't see anyone arrive or any activity in home. So why would Knox/Sollecito sneak into the apartment.
4. Guede, to this day, claims to have arrived at the scene before Meredith and was let in the home by Meredith.
5. Guede claims the broke down car was outside the home when he fled the scene, which was moments after Meredith died. (points to number 3) Guede doesn't mention the car in the drive way that witnesses do see.
6. Car in drive that doesn't belong to Sollecito.
7. Guede points out which window was broken before the knowledge was released to the public.
8. There not only would be a car outside the home but also a car in the driveway when Sollecit/Knox arrived. Plus Guede in the apartment. Thats alot of witnesses to committ murder like Guede claims. The assisted rape then murder time frame just got a whole lot shorter. Plus Guede leaves around 10pm and knows which window is broken. So they have to break the window before Guede leave to stage a break in.

 

[Fine]

Them Stupid Italian Scientists

I have uploaded Rinaldi's presentations:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi1.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi2.pdf

You may wish to use your caliper tool to confirm dimensions. Here's my analysis of Rinaldi's measuring error:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

_______________

Charlie,

A perceptive discovery, but I don't believe that you've discovered a measuring error. Just a typographical error. You are correct that the metatarsal length indicated by the double-end arrow is approximately 55mm in the case of Rudy's bare footprint, instead of the "66.7mm" length in the illustration (and conjoined caption). Please see last link posted by Charlie, http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html "66.7" should have read "55.7"

I presume that Rinaldi corrected this error in his court testimony, or perhaps the Rinaldi2.pdf file you linked is an earlier "draft" that was corrected, and so didn't appear in his final report.

Otherwise, Massei could have quickly dismissed any idea of Rudy being responsible for the bloody bathmat print, where the corresponding length on the bathmat was a mere 50mm. But Massei doesn't even mention this huge discrepancy! (See Massei MOTIVATION REPORT, English Translation, page 337.) Likewise, in Raffaele's APPEAL, summarized on Bruce's site, InjusticeInPerugia, I find no mention at all of this "measuring error." There was certainly a mistake. In my judgment a clerical mistake and so of no consequence.

///

 

[Kaosium]

A (presumably qualified) legal consultant wrote this note on page 12 of the Motovations.




Michael a/k/a Fulcanelli gave the same explanation in another blog; that is, that it is about accusing someone you know to be innocent.

I can't see any way they can prove that Amanda knew the police to be innocent.

What occurs to me is the charge is she was there and thus must know whether it occurred or not. Did I understand correctly what you meant?

 

[Mary_H]

What occurs to me is the charge is she was there and thus must know whether it occurred or not. Did I understand correctly what you meant?

I think so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Meredith was not hungry

Something I notice in the letter - the youngest child had 50cc of gastric content and the oldest had 100cc. IIRC, Meredith had 500cc in her stomach. If MK ate between 5 and 10 times the amount of what those kids ate, I think it just may border on a large meal, which takes longer to digest.

Just sayin'.

Also, why the difference between the children's stomach contents when it is explicitly stated the meals were "portion-controlled, uniformly prepared, etc." leading the reader to surmise they all ate the same amount of food. (Or maybe my surmiser is broken.)

The first page of the letter does not say whether any food was found in the duodenum; therefore, I wonder whether the volumes that are quoted represent the whole meal. Sophie remembered that Meredith ate only a portion of her pizza. This will be my last post for a little while. I hope to be back before too long.

 

[Justinian2]

In engineering, we were always taught to look at the decimal places, significant digits and computational accuracies.

What I mean is that you can't take the square root of a number many times and then square the number the same number of times and always have the same number.

The accuracy of the measurement is important to know. Further calculations depend on the result.

Only so much data can be gleaned from one measurement.

Engineers get more data by repeating the measurement. Then, through either averaging or convolution, they slowly reconstruct the original datum. The formula for the accuracy is 1/sqrt(#measurements). In other words, if you make 25 measurements, your accuracy increases 5 times or your inaccuracy is 1/5th.

This wasn't possible with the DNA. This wasn't possible with the footprint. In other words, unless you can get more information and samples you cannot possibly prove anything with the DNA or the footprint.

CSI is a joke; it exists only in the minds of the viewers and the script writers. Don't think that infinite data is possible from a tiny sample.

You're barking up the wrong trees.

 

[christianahannah]

The time given by Comodi was not general, it was specific.

MC: (...) you first called your mother at 12. At midday.
MC: But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet.
MC: Do you remember when your mother said "But at 12, nothing had happened yet."​

Comodi says 12, then she says midday. Midday can mean the time around 12. Comodi's line of questioning is not to establish the exact time of the call - it is to question why Amanda doesn't remember the call, especially in light of phone records and Edda's own testimony that the call was made.

Sorry for the confusion christianahannah. I obviously meant Massei was tricked during the trial. To repeat what I wrote before:
While Massei is not logical because here he states the 12:47 time (but is he ever?) he fully adopts the point of Comodi's dirty trick. To clarify again - I am sure that at that moment he was already aware of Comodi's foul play. He just found it to be a great idea and used it in the motivation.

No apology is needed. I wasn't confused. Yes, Massei is logical. I'm sure he was taking note of both the questions asked and answers given during Amanda's testimony.

Here Amanda clearly is aware that at 12:00 she was back at Raffaele's and not left yet to the cottage for the second time, she obviously didn't get Comodi's half hearted clarification, but is impressed by her repetitions of 12:00 time:

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --​

Comodi then cuts her, because it's clearly true, that Amanda made no call to mother at 12:00, when she was at Raffaele's.

Comodi's clarification wasn't half-hearted, it was a statement of the facts, the call to Amanda's mother took place before the door was broken down.

Did Comodi accuse Amanda of making the first phone call from Raffaele's flat?

Here Massei obviously either didn't get Comodi's clarification or is playing along with her:

GCM: Excuse me. You don't remember, but the pubblico ministero just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received in the night.

MC: At three o'clock at night.

GCM: So, it must have been true, it happened. Did you have the habit
of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday
in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each
other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.​

Even Massei uses the term midday. I thought it was nice how he tried to help Amanda remember the particulars of the phone call.

She not once stated the time correctly, yet multiple times emphasized the 12:00 time. You yourself noted that she was fully aware of the time of the call, yet she didn't correct neither judge Massei, nor Amanda.

Comodi also uses midday several times. And no objection from the defense during that line of questioning by Comodi. Did she trick them, too?

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make during this line of questioning?

 

[Kaosium]

I think so.

Ohhhh...I get it now. Then what was the purpose of this charge? BTW is this just standard practice it Italy or something? File a charge like this as a way to 'defend your honor' and in reality it turns out to be just a day in court and a retraction? I'm just not getting this, it strikes me as bizarre.

 

[Chris C]

Comodi says 12, then she says midday. Midday can mean the time around 12. Comodi's line of questioning is not to establish the exact time of the call - it is to question why Amanda doesn't remember the call, especially in light of phone records and Edda's own testimony that the call was made.



No apology is needed. I wasn't confused. Yes, Massei is logical. I'm sure he was taking note of both the questions asked and answers given during Amanda's testimony.



Comodi's clarification wasn't half-hearted, it was a statement of the facts, the call to Amanda's mother took place before the door was broken down.

Did Comodi accuse Amanda of making the first phone call from Raffaele's flat?



Even Massei uses the term midday. I thought it was nice how he tried to help Amanda remember the particulars of the phone call.



Comodi also uses midday several times. And no objection from the defense during that line of questioning by Comodi. Did she trick them, too?

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make during this line of questioning?

But does not amanda explain she was at Sollecito's at 12 so she dont remember that call?

 

[platonov]

Wow, that was fast.




Analogies aren't anecdotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#cite_note-2

You've only been here for 60 posts.




Go for it.

I guess you got the point when you have to go to Wiki.

.... You've never heard the old saw about the circumnavigating root vegetable....?

PS Did you just <snip> JC - (at the risk of being hyperbolic ) are there not theological implications therein.

 

[Kaosium]

A
C With all due respect ...No, its irrelevant , lets see a treatment of where & how the appeal can overturn the original judgment.
.

That there is virtually nothing left of the prosecution's original case? Almost everything has been thoroughly debunked, and all that is really left is irrelevant 'lies,' comic books and whatever else it was?

Originally the case that convicted Amanda and Raffaele claimed they had the murder weapon, proof of Amanda and Raffaele at the murder site and the motive was murky, but at least it made sense--if you didn't listen much to the defense. That happens sometimes in courtrooms all over the world.

I believe it highly unlikely to happen again, the first one was a 'perfect storm' and they will get it right on the appeal. Who could convict a person of murder over the reasons posted this past weekend? Honestly?

 

[Dan O.]

But does not amanda explain she was at Sollecito's at 12 so she dont remember that call?

Obviously christianahannah thinks Amanda called her mom at 12. It's funny that this call didn't show up in Amanda's phone records.

BTW, someone should pass this link to Comodi for the next time she needs to convert times to different timezones: http://www.worldtimeserver.com/convert_time_in_IT.aspx?y=2010&mo=11&d=1&h=12&mn=0

 

[Chris C]

Obviously christianahannah thinks Amanda called her mom at 12. It's funny that this call didn't show up in Amanda's phone records.

BTW, someone should pass this link to Comodi for the next time she needs to convert times to different timezones: http://www.worldtimeserver.com/convert_time_in_IT.aspx?y=2010&mo=11&d=1&h=12&mn=0

Yes you would think that since knox was the target of the investigation for over a year before the trial even started they would know the time it was in Seattle. Which everytime she said 3am, that was close to 2 hours before the call actually happened.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Comodi says 12, then she says midday. Midday can mean the time around 12.

True, it can. And 12:00 can mean 12:47, and 3:00 can mean 4:47.

Comodi's line of questioning is not to establish the exact time of the call - it is to question why Amanda doesn't remember the call, especially in light of phone records and Edda's own testimony that the call was made.

That's interesting, but I cannot see that from the transcript. Could you point to me the corresponding Comodi's questions?

Yes, Massei is logical.

In some way he is. I can gladly agree on this with you

I'm sure he was taking note of both the questions asked and answers given during Amanda's testimony.

There's no doubt about it, either.

Comodi's clarification wasn't half-hearted, it was a statement of the facts, the call to Amanda's mother took place before the door was broken down.

Indeed, it was a fact at 12:00, it was not less of a fact at 12:47 too.

Did Comodi accuse Amanda of making the first phone call from Raffaele's flat?

No. Why?

Even Massei uses the term midday.

Yes, he uses it to confirm the "At three o'clock at night" Comodi just said.

I thought it was nice how he tried to help Amanda remember the particulars of the phone call.

He would be even more helpful if he resolved Amanda's confusion about the time of the call instead of supporting it and going along with Comodi.

And no objection from the defense during that line of questioning by Comodi. Did she trick them, too?

Yes they were taken by surprise and gamed by the prosecution. They covered and defused other possible points of attack during their questioning. That they hadn't asked a question about this before the prosecution time shows lack of preparation. And no objection shows either poor reactions and/or they were not aware what was really going on until it was too late.

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make during this line of questioning?

I've already told you this a few times in our exchange. Let me only cite myself for now, I'll try to make a short summary later:

post 11740
The fact that even Massei was tricked makes me think it's probable the jury also understood it exactly as Comodi intended: That Amanda made a suspicious phone call at 12:00 before anything happened and revealed in that call knowledge of facts that she could know about only after discovering the break-in.
post 11633
The point being made was one of Amanda having some suspicious knowledge of some things at 12:00 when "nothing happened yet".


I'm glad we agree on almost everything at last

 

[Diastole]

Are you a MD?

Well actually, treehorn, I am. And while I can't speak to Kevin Lowe's medical qualifications, I do find his analysis of the implications of Kercher's autopsy findings to be entirely compelling. Massei's contention that her entire duodenal contents "slipped" to the terminal ileum during the autopsy is far-fetched in the extreme. Had Dr. Lalli neglected to place any ligatures, and intentionally "milked" her entire small bowel hand over hand, it is doubtful that he could have completely evacuated her duodenum, jejunum and proximal ileum.

Prior to reading the Report, I would have been surprised that Massei seriously advanced this notion; unfortunately,it is typical of the "reasoning" on display throughout. My interest in this case dates to some remarks made by Douglas Preston in the lead up to the verdict. He was convinced that Knox and Sollecito were innocent and equally convinced they would be convicted. At the time, these comments seemed odd. Having read the Report, I understand them completely.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

_______________

Charlie,

A perceptive discovery, but I don't believe that you've discovered a measuring error. Just a typographical error. You are correct that the metatarsal length indicated by the double-end arrow is approximately 55mm in the case of Rudy's bare footprint, instead of the "66.7mm" length in the illustration (and conjoined caption). Please see last link posted by Charlie, http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html "66.7" should have read "55.7"

I presume that Rinaldi corrected this error in his court testimony, or perhaps the Rinaldi2.pdf file you linked is an earlier "draft" that was corrected, and so didn't appear in his final report.

Otherwise, Massei could have quickly dismissed any idea of Rudy being responsible for the bloody bathmat print, where the corresponding length on the bathmat was a mere 50mm. But Massei doesn't even mention this huge discrepancy! (See Massei MOTIVATION REPORT, English Translation, page 337.) Likewise, in Raffaele's APPEAL, summarized on Bruce's site, InjusticeInPerugia, I find no mention at all of this "measuring error." There was certainly a mistake. In my judgment a clerical mistake and so of no consequence.

///

I wonder why he rounded every measurement except that one to the closest millimeter.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

I asked an anesthesiologist how likely it was that Meredith's stomach would not have started to empty its contents after about five hours, and he said zero. I have posted this before, in the hopes that you or anyone else who know surgeons or anesthesiologists would ask them also.

I also disagree with your assessment with respect to what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says. Pro-guilt commenters are fond of quoting a portion of an article by Jaffe, but here is a letter written in response to it.

Thanks for the link - I'll check it out.

Alas, I think you're thinking of "Kevin_Lowe."

I offered NO "assessment" of the "peer-reviewed scientific literature" in respect of the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, or the displacement of alimentary matter within that organ during autopsy.

Nor did I make any claims in respect of the properties of the human intestine that could only be ascertained by one who has literally held the organ in their hands and attempted to displace alimentary matter within.

I'm not a MD, much less a pathologist with sub-specialization in forensic medicine.

Ergo it would not behoove me to make any such assessments or claims.

(Nor would it behoove me to defame highly-trained medical doctors based on nothing more than an amateur's evaluation of scientific literature intended for an audience that has spent, at a minimum, about 1.5 decades studying science and MEDICINE.)

PS Do you think anyone will 'hunt me down' now that I've "revealed" that I am not a medical doctor???

 

[treehorn]

In engineering, we were always taught to look at the decimal places, significant digits and computational accuracies.

What I mean is that you can't take the square root of a number many times and then square the number the same number of times and always have the same number.

The accuracy of the measurement is important to know. Further calculations depend on the result.

Only so much data can be gleaned from one measurement.

Engineers get more data by repeating the measurement. Then, through either averaging or convolution, they slowly reconstruct the original datum. The formula for the accuracy is 1/sqrt(#measurements). In other words, if you make 25 measurements, your accuracy increases 5 times or your inaccuracy is 1/5th.

This wasn't possible with the DNA. This wasn't possible with the footprint. In other words, unless you can get more information and samples you cannot possibly prove anything with the DNA or the footprint.

CSI is a joke; it exists only in the minds of the viewers and the script writers. Don't think that infinite data is possible from a tiny sample.

You're barking up the wrong trees.

Are you under the impression that legal guilt is determined using only scientific formulae replete with propagation of error calculations?!

 

[Mary_H]

I guess you got the point when you have to go to Wiki.

Thank you.

.... You've never heard the old saw about the circumnavigating root vegetable....?

Not that I can call to mind, unless this is a veiled reference to turnip juice and luminol. Would you be willing to clarify what you mean? Or are we at an impasse about carrots and potatoes, too?

PS Did you just <snip> JC - (at the risk of being hyperbolic ) are there not theological implications therein.

Darn right. That last lightning bolt just missed me !!