Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

I don't know much about this but can a production company just decide to make a movie about someone's life without their consent? Or maybe they are are just making the movie based on what is in the public record? Then again, how can they use her name and story without her permission?

This is an interesting point, it would be nice if someone more familiar with the law in this matter could clear it up. I would think there would have to be some allowance, at least in the US, made for public figures, otherwise we could never see many movies based on true stories that included information negative to the person portrayed, some of which may in fact be in dispute or in fact factually wrong: 'poetic license.'

I do know Dylan was forced to re-record "Hurricane" because of legal concerns, and that he had to pay Patty Valentine a settlement due to what he wrote about her involvement. I can't remember if Bello and Bradley challenged this as well, though I'd think they might have as Dylan's song quite starkly says "they lied."

That was thirty-five years or so ago though, so it may have changed in the interim.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree with what you said about constraints inherent in high profile cases. Genuine experts are of two types. One type is intellectually honest and faithful to the expert's field of study. Such experts will have the same opinions irrespective of which side hires them . The other type "will work with you" and approach their work in much the same way an attorney advocates for a client.

An attorney is not supposed to make false representations of fact to the court; however, an attorney is not required to disclose facts that are harmful to the client's position. And the attorney's sworn duty is to zealously represent the interests of the client and make the best case possible from the known facts.

Some experts do the same, selecting those facts that support an alternative conclusion that is more helpful to the client. If cross-examined, they will concede what they must and not lie about principles in their area of learning. But if the other side had hired them first, they would express a completely different set of conclusions, but for them, water does not run uphill.

Since this discussion is in the context of the ToD as indicated by the stomach/intestinal contents, I'll make a bold assertion: I don't think that there's an experienced forensic pathologist or gastroenterology specialist in the world who, if asked to give a specific scientific/medical opinion of what the stomach/intestinal contents found at autopsy indicated about ToD, would say anything other than that Meredith had to have died between around 45 minutes and 3 hours after eating. I feel confident to make this assertion because this is not only what all accredited research literature available online says, it's also the view of every medical professional so far. And of course since we know that Meredith ate her last meal at around 6.30pm, and that she was still alive at 9pm, we can narrow things down to say that she almost certainly died between 9pm and 9.30pm - and absolutely certainly by 10pm.

What some have been insinuating (I believe) is that my previous post somehow implied that medical experts can be somehow made malleable. In other words, the defence teams can find a "tame" pathologist, for example, and say to him/her something like: "Look, we need you to say that the ToD has to be within 3 hours of Meredith's last meal - whether or not that's in line with your personal expertise or all the research in this field. Would that be OK? There's 15,000 Euro in it for you....."

As you've pointed out, there's an inglorious history of trial "experts" being persuaded to "bend" their testimony in favour of the side that's paying them - and all too often they've got caught out doing so. In this particular instance, my point is that no such activity would even be necessary: I believe that every suitably qualified and experienced professional in this field would be prepared to testify under oath that food starts to leave the stomach between around 45 minutes and 3 hours after the ingestion of the meal. Some of them might have to check the corpus of research literature to cement their knowledge, since using this particular technique to determine ToD is probably not something they do very often in their work. But the literature is clear, as will be the experts' testimony on the stand.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Did they?

No, they didn't. And I'm sure you know it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nara lives at Via Melo 26, and according to Massei, she can see only part of the roof of the cottage from her window. It is the roof over the older part of the cottage which is visible to her. The newer one, where Meredith's room was located is completely obstructed by that roof and there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door (which apart from that is not facing Nara's window) - Machiavelli is again unconventional in his use of word compatible.

When hypothesizing about sound propagation we must take into account the difference in elevation, lack of direct path, sound occlusion (by the obstructing building, the wall of the car park, the elevated road embankment) and lack of surfaces that would reflect the sound in the direction of Nara's window.

Nara's window is clearly visible from the balcony, as a picture showed.
And the large window opening on the balcony is obviously a source compatible with that window. The word compatible means possible. Distance is very short (physically actually 41 meters), there is no occlusive barrer, spund propagation - being an elastic compression wave - does not occur just along straight lines and does not depend so much on the track in the midway (it depends more, for instance, on the shape of objects close to the point of arrival).
I this case the direct path is almost entirely clear. Nara could not see a person at the balcony window. But to state she should not have heared a sound coming from that window, there is no ground to say that. The source is certainly compatible. Moreover, bear in mind there were also other window in the cottage, one could have been even open, like the window in the big bathroom (as Rudy had just been in the toilet) and this window faces Nara's window directly.

 

[Katody Matrass]

And all this is not what makes a witness unreliable. What makes a witness unreliable is lies, inconsistencies. not this trivial mistakes on routinary data.

I don't doubt you're 99% sure about her reliability.

 

[Kaosium]

Nara's window is clearly visible from the balcony, as a picture showed.
And the large window opening on the balcony is obviously a source compatible with that window. The word compatible means possible.

In a general sense, how does this use of 'compatible' square with the concept of 'reasonable doubt?' Establishing a sequence of events that is 'possible' is quite a bit different than developing one that that is likely or near certain.

 

[platonov]

I believe what Platonov is getting at is information I think I read from Machiavelli on another site. That if Curtatolo breaks their alibi, he cannot establish another one for them. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I believe that was what was said. I have also read that even if they cannot prove Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, if they can 'prove' they were lying about their alibi they would still be held 'responsible' for the murder and could be convicted. Apparently this is not uncommon under Italian law.

Regarding Curatolo ....

<snip>

No Kaosium I'm not getting at an arcane viewpoint as expressed on any other site or even a point that applies only to Italian Law.

I am pointing out again in very simple terms [admittedly there was much 'incomprehension' when I first highlighted this several weeks ago] what is blindingly obvious - the fact that the Foakers here fail to appreciate or accept this point makes it no less obvious.

[Machiavelli or Fulcanelli or Fiona or whoever may well have made this point here earlier in more patient terms but it was obviously ignored.]
In fact it shouldn't even need to be made w.r.t how it affects the defence's approach to the trial - it is that obvious.

If you still don't get it - Fine ; Have a look at the earlier exchanges, the defence teams do.
And I suspect they know more about this kind of thing than me --- or even you

You also appear to be confusing this point [as others did before]with actually accepting the veracity of C's evidence - They are not the same thing.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

No Kaosium I'm not getting at an arcane viewpoint as expressed on any other site or even a point that applies only to Italian Law.

I am pointing out again in very simple terms [admittedly there was much incomprehension when I first highlighted this several weeks ago] what is blindingly obvious - the fact that the Foakers here fail to appreciate or accept this point makes it no less obvious.

[Machiavelli or Fulcanelli or Fiona or whoever may well have made this point here earlier in more patient terms but it was obviously ignored.]
In fact it shouldn't even need to be made w.r.t how it affects the defence's approach to the trial - it is that obvious.

If you still don't get it - Fine ; Have a look at the earlier exchanges, the defence teams do.
And I suspect they know more about this kind of thing than me --- or even you

You also appear to be confusing this point [as others did before]with actually accepting the veracity of C's evidence - They are not the same thing.

.

.

This whole area of argument is - in my view - moot. I think that Curatolo will almost certainly be discredited as a prosecution witness in the appeal. Therefore his testimony regarding Knox's and Sollecito's whereabouts on the evening of 1st November will be thrown out.

I raise you one superfluous and unnecessary "personaliser" full stop:

.

.

.

 

[platonov]

One of the signs of the apocalypse ?

This whole area of argument is - in my view - moot. I think that Curatolo will almost certainly be discredited as a prosecution witness in the appeal. Therefore his testimony regarding Knox's and Sollecito's whereabouts on the evening of 1st November will be thrown out.

I raise you one superfluous and unnecessary "personaliser" full stop:

.

It wasn't moot several weeks ago - there was much gnashing of teeth

But I'm glad we have finally made some progress - even if only on a point as simple as this.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, I don't read it that way. I think he points out that they have no doubt that Amanda is guilty as sin, and then complains about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family. I have already agreed he also complains about the media attention on Amanda and the celebrity status give her as well as the lack of focus on his own daughter.

I call this twisting his statements, to misquote his words changing them in order to criticize them.
I read howevr that there is at least a change in verb, from "whines" to "complains".
But still, there is a twist and misinterpretation by removing parts of the meaning that are pretty obvious. To avoid ambiguity, I want to pint out that what I clearly understand he never wishses to have more sympathy from Amanda's family, and doesn't expect sympathy.
So he does not complain his family doesn't have "sympathy". He rather complain they didn't have "sympathy" in the past years.

Moreover, it is obvious the purpose of his statement is to express his position to the public, not to dialogue with Amanda's family. Therefore, I cannot subscribe to your perception that his statement is contradictory. His article points to the attention of the public a reality about the behaviour of the Knox family, his point of view about the behaviour of the Knox family, and this just as effect of the need to take a position in contrast to the media point of view conveyed by Knoxs' exposure. Mr. Kercher wants public to perceive that there is another point of view that lack attention, that his perspective is different, and thus wants to insert his feeling and judgement to correct the story.
The fact that the Knox family appeared callous is, right as you can read, stated as a fact. A true B-side of this story, something the readers might want to know as they watch Edda getting emotional on tv. Kercher is a journalist, he doesn't write to whine, but to contribute in building a reader's critical perspective.

More interesting to me was the explanation given by the Knox family.
They didn't say they were cold with the Kerchers because the Kerchers thought Amanda was guilty. Not at all.
They stated instad something really more catchy and more self-blaming. They said that they didn't contact the Kercher in order to not add to their pain. Thus admitting they didn't speak to them because, had they done so, they would have produced a negative effect on the Kerchers rather than a positive one. They admitted that bringing their sympathy and condolences would have been worse. This alone is descriptive of the quality of arguments they think they have to communicate with the Kerchers.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Nara's window is clearly visible from the balcony, as a picture showed.

Let me repeat myself:

there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door​

That you can barely see part of her window from the far end terrace corner is not actually a counterargument.

I think you're mistaken about sound propagation. We're not talking about subsonic elephant calls. Woman's scream would produce soundwave of few centimeters length. For such a sound direct radiation and early reflections would constitute most of the energy received at Nara's window. Such a short wave is also very susceptible to occlusions. And there is nothing that would reflect the sound towards Nara. The cottage (and Nara's window) faces an open foliaged slope.

Moreover, bear in mind there were also other window in the cottage, one could have been even open, like the window in the big bathroom (as Rudy had just been in the toilet) and this window faces Nara's window directly.

I doubt it. But piling assumptions is the only way to prevent Massei's non-scenario from falling apart, that's a fact.

 

[TomCH]

]there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door

It's called 'line of sight'.

It exists.

End of story.

 

[Machiavelli]

Since this discussion is in the context of the ToD as indicated by the stomach/intestinal contents, I'll make a bold assertion: I don't think that there's an experienced forensic pathologist or gastroenterology specialist in the world who, if asked to give a specific scientific/medical opinion of what the stomach/intestinal contents found at autopsy indicated about ToD, would say anything other than that Meredith had to have died between around 45 minutes and 3 hours after eating.

(..)

I think you will never find a credited specialist who makes such statement in these terms.
I am not a medical doctor but all my family members are. I have plenty of friends among doctors, and being my parents both doctors I even developed - unwilling - a sort of medical culture. I cannot think of a single person among those I know who would be available to state a conclusion of that kind. I asked several doctors on the case, they are not specialists of the subject gastroenterology, all of them however said thye think an answer of this kind would be impossible. And I agree on this by my reading of a bit of literature.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's called 'line of sight'.

It exists.

Not according to Massei.

And he miraculously may be right this time

I guess I must repeat myself again
there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door
That you can barely see part of her window from the far end terrace corner doesn't mean there is a line of sight between the door and that window.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let me repeat myself:

there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door​

That you can barely see part of her window from the far end terrace corner is not actually a counterargument.

I think you're mistaken about sound propagation. We're not talking about subsonic elephant calls. Woman's scream would produce soundwave of few centimeters length. For such a sound direct radiation and early reflections would constitute most of the energy received at Nara's window. Such a short wave is also very susceptible to occlusions. And there is nothing that would reflect the sound towards Nara. The cottage (and Nara's window) faces an open foliaged slope.
(..)

Let me repeat myself:

a scream through the balcony window would be perfectly audible.

And the floor of the balcony itself would reflect the sound towards Nara. The ceiling of the corridoor could contribute. The roof of the small hut facing the balcony could contribute. The balcony is a secondary source, and the only occlusive element on a straight line could be the old wing of the house, which opposes a minuscle profile (two meters?). You cannot reasonably claim a sound wave can't be heared because the source is behind the corner of a house.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not according to Massei.

And he miraculously may be right this time

I guess I must repeat myself again
there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door
That you can barely see part of her window from the far end terrace corner doesn't mean there is a line of sight between the door and that window.

The TV interview that Capezzali gave to Italian TV showed the view from her window. From her apartment it's only possible to see the top of the roof of the part of the cottage that contains the large bathroom, kitchen/lounge and Laura's bedroom. The rest of the roof and the side elevation of the cottage is obscured by the rooftop car park. And in addition to that, even if the car park weren't in the way, the kitchen/lounge area of the house lies between the balcony and Capezzali's apartment. Sound pressure waves would have a great deal of work to do in order to pass from Meredith's small room to inside Nera Capezzali's apartment.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let me repeat myself:

a scream through the balcony window would be perfectly audible.

And the floor of the balcony itself would reflect the sound towards Nara. The ceiling of the corridoor could contribute. The roof of the small hut facing the balcony could contribute. The balcony is a secondary source, and the only occlusive element on a straight line could be the old wing of the house, which opposes a minuscle profile (two meters?). You cannot reasonably claim a sound wave can't be heared because the source is behind the corner of a house.

A scream through the balcony window? Are you implying that Meredith was standing by the open balcony window when this alleged scream occurred?

If Meredith's scream came when she was either on her bed or by the wardrobe, her room itself would absorb the vast majority of the acoustic energy. The door - presuming it was even open at the time - is only one very small aperture leading out of the room, probably accounting for less than 1/40 of the total wall/floor/ceiling surface area of Meredith's room. Oh, and the majority of the ceiling in Meredith's room was heavy wooden beams - which are an excellent acoustic dampener. Her mattress and bedding would have absorbed yet more of the acoustic energy.

So the sound pressure wave of this "scream" would have had to struggle to make its way even out of Meredith's room in the first place, and much of its energy would have been dissipated or absorbed before it even reached the balcony window. I'm guessing that proper audiometric tests might turn out to be extremely interesting.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Let me repeat myself:

a scream through the balcony window would be perfectly audible.

It's not how it works. You repeat if you have an argument to repeat. Conjuring reality won't do.

And the floor of the balcony itself would reflect the sound towards Nara.

So now we have line of sight between Nara's window and balcony floor? How sure are you about it?

The ceiling of the corridoor could contribute. The roof of the small hut facing the balcony could contribute. The balcony is a secondary source, and the only occlusive element on a straight line could be the old wing of the house, which opposes a minuscle profile (two meters?).

Few meters barrier is not minuscule to a few centimeters long sound wave. And we're talking about sound that went through a few reflections and occlusions already from inside of Meredith's room, to the corridor, through closed window and shutters.

You cannot reasonably claim a sound wave can't be heared because the source is behind the corner of a house.

Maybe, but it's not my claim. I'm talking about a sound from a most distant room inside the house, going through a half open door, a corridor, closed balcony window, half open shutters, around the corner or around the roof, then up and around the parking lot wall. And almost no reflective walls around that house. only trees, foliage, open space. Almost every wall in the vicinity would reflect it away from Nara's.

And I think much of that sound would be absorbed already inside Meredith's room. And let's not forget that every reflection means partial absorption.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you will never find a credited specialist who makes such statement in these terms.
I am not a medical doctor but all my family members are. I have plenty of friends among doctors, and being my parents both doctors I even developed - unwilling - a sort of medical culture. I cannot think of a single person among those I know who would be available to state a conclusion of that kind. I asked several doctors on the case, they are not specialists of the subject gastroenterology, all of them however said thye think an answer of this kind would be impossible. And I agree on this by my reading of a bit of literature.

Well, I've talked to a professor of gastroenterology (and consultant gastroenterologist) at one of London's main teaching hospitals about it (he's treated me over many years for a GI inflammatory disease), and his view is that anything over even two hours is extremely unusual. He administers radioactive or barium tracers to patients with stomach and upper GI problems routinely - they are often given within a balanced meal of carbohydrate, protein and fats, in the case of patients who either overproduce or underproduce stomach acids/enzymes. CT scans or x-rays follow the passage of the markers through the digestive system.

His view was that 3 hours was the absolute upper limit for a solid meal to still be wholly within the stomach - and in fact he said he'd never seen anyone whose stomach was still full of the meal after 3 hours. He did, however, say that it was medically feasible. He laughed at the suggestion that a meal might be still 100% in the stomach after more than 4 hours.

By the way, please show me (and everyone else) this medical literature that you say you've read which supports your opinion. I recall that the last literature you presented here was way off the mark in that it dealt with t(1/2) rather than t(lag) - and you didn't seem to have realised the difference. I hope your next piece of documentary evidence actually addresses the correct parameters. If it's good, credible, peer-reviewed research, and it says that a study of healthy adults eating an average-sized meal shows that any more than 1% of them still had that meal entirely within their stomach after 3 hours, or that more than 0.05% of them lasted more than four hours, then I'll be both surprised and impressed. But somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Kaosium]

No Kaosium I'm not getting at an arcane viewpoint as expressed on any other site or even a point that applies only to Italian Law.

I am pointing out again in very simple terms [admittedly there was much 'incomprehension' when I first highlighted this several weeks ago] what is blindingly obvious - the fact that the Foakers here fail to appreciate or accept this point makes it no less obvious.
<...>
.

I think I understand your point, and perhaps where some of the confusion comes from. There's at least two levels to this case, one being what actually happened, and the other what was 'proven' in court. In the latter sense Curtatolo's testimony only actually exists in the prosecution's case, being as they're not going to produce a witness that would bely their narrative--though he nearly did so on the stand. The defense wouldn't use him as he would give lie to their alibi. If the time of death is changed to a more scientifically supportable time, then Curtatolo disappears, and the defense wouldn't call him.