Nonsense.
The defence appeal experts appear to be trying to use the 'standard' parameters* on gastric emptying etc and simply pushing the time back to the earlier part of the range (much as they did in the 1st trial) - To come up with a 9.30 - 10.00 ToD window.
* Using the 6.30 Mealtime start as opposed to the possible 7.00 & using the 3 from the 3-4 hr range [or the 2-3] ?? its not clear from the docs. Or saying mealtime is 6.30 - 7.00 and just adding 3.
If we get a properly human translated doc we may be able to tell exactly what and if it even differs from the arguments put forward in the 1st trial.
Your and Kevin Lowe's theories on the other hand are based on some 'truther' type science that exists only in your own imagination and has given us among other results
- A ToD range with, at one stage, a midpoint at
8.00 [IIRC MK's English friends were in the fame as a result]
- A ToD from Kevin Lowe of [in several posts] of
9.05 (sometimes 9.15 - when you are just making it up, pick any time you like)
- Your own recent
p= 0.95 claim for a ToD
before 9.20
And you wonder why they don't agree with your earlier times ?
It's Simple - what you have produced is nonsense as any layman can tell.
In a nutshell there's no certainty or precision, merely a range on ToD from gastric analysis as was made clear by the experts in the trial.
Note also that of 6-7 pages in the machine doc posted above much of it is spent on Weight & Temp issues which also have broad ranges and wont settle the matter either.
Not at all - Some probably can but not you guys based on what we have seen so far.
Its not that surprising given the difficulties you encounter in much simpler areas
.
Ah we're back to the strange superfluous full stop, I see. Just as an aside, can I ask why you feel it important to do that?
As you'll have seen, various pathologists gave varying times for food leaving the stomach, some of which contradicted each other. Dr Lalli - the police pathologist - stated pretty unequivocally that death occurred within
no more than 2-3 hours of Meredith eating her last meal. This is clearly contradictory to other testimony given by Umani Ronchi and Bacci, which extended the time window out to 4 hours after eating. These two sets of forensic pathologists can't both be correct - one of them (at least) has to be wrong. By definition. And these are the "experts".
I believe that none of the experts in the first trial was properly versed in the determination of ToD from the condition of the stomach/duodenum contents. And I think that's because pathologists rarely (if ever) in their entire career are called upon to use this method to determine ToD. I stand 100% behind my assertion that all the medical literature shows that a t(lag) of over 3 hours is massively unusual. And my gastro consultant endorses that view explicitly. And every research study that is available online (which is to say virtually every one that's been conducted) is entirely in line with that view.
I see that you've fallen back to what you (and stilicho) think is a fundamental flaw in the argument - that since the ToD range has a midpoint of 8pm, this invalidates the whole argument. I can only assume that you have extremely low critical reasoning faculties. The
midpoint in the range is indeed 8pm - just like the average adult male height in the UK might be 5ft10. But that doesn't mean all males in the UK are 5ft10 tall, any more than it means that Meredith must have died at 8pm. To extend this analogy, since we know that Meredith must have died later than 9pm, this is roughly analogous to knowing that a particular adult male is 6ft8 or taller. This is because 9pm (ie t(lag)=2.5 hours=150min) is at about the 98% level on the probability distribution curve, according to all the research. In other words, only 2% of people have a t(lag) of 150min or longer. Meredith by definition must be one of this very small minority of people. Just as somebody who's 6ft8 or taller is in a very small minority of adult males.
The question now is this: given that Meredith's t(lag) is greater than 150min, what's the probability that it's between 150min and 170mins. And the research data suggest that this is a 95% probability (I've done the maths elsewhere on previous posts, and my maths is correct, but feel free to check). Back to the analogy: given that a man is over 6ft8 tall, what's the probability that he's between 6ft8 and 7ft2 (as opposed to over 7ft2). Again, the probability is around 95%, because although it's already unusual to be over 6ft8 tall, it's extraordinarily unusual to be over 7ft2 tall.
Do you understand this reasoning? Don't insult me by comparing my arguments to those of truthers. Your comment on the 8pm median point shows that you're either ignorant of statistics or willfully trying to distort/obfuscate the argument - which is it?
Lastly, here's just one of the research papers which has charted t(lag) times in a statistically significant study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x/abstract
Perhaps you can use this paper to point out to me, using all your powers of scientific reasoning, how likely it is (according to this paper) that t(lag) for a solid meal is greater than the following times:
a) 81.5 minutes (1 hour 21.5 minutes)
b) 102 minutes (1 hour 42 minutes)
c) 150 minutes (2 hours 30 minutes)
d) 170 minutes (2 hours 50 minutes)
e) 210 minutes (3 hours 30 minutes)
Hint: the answers to a and b are given in the abstract. But in order to compute c, d and e you'll have to map the information given in the abstract onto a standard gaussian curve with a percentile scale, correlating the 50% and 75% points.
Enjoy, and please let me know the results you come back with.
