• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am fully aware with scientific research and statistics, but it seems that you are not.


Which other studies, and what was the t(lag)?



What weight is "small"?
How much carbohydrates exactly?
How much fats exactly?
How much protein exactly?
etc,etc,etc

The fact is you can not show how the paper has any relation to what Meredith kercher ate, there is no way you could test and reproduce your theory with such vague terms as "small" and "balanced meal".

Here's another study whose aims (as with the Hellmig et al study) were to establish a reference curve for gastric emptying of solid food. It shows a T(lag) curve virtually identical to the Hellmig et al study - median of 81.9 min, SD of 17.4 min. I can't access the full text of this article, so I cannot be sure of the meal composition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1746.2003.02901.x/abstract

You are searching for a level of precision which is not only unattainable, but also irrelevant. If you are unsatisfied that the research hasn't exactly replicated the meal Meredith ate, then by all means carry on crying foul. But all the available evidence shows that ANY small-to-moderate sized meal consumed by a healthy adult without alcohol will not remain wholly within the stomach beyond 3.5 hours after the meal, and only has a minute chance of still being wholly inside the stomach any longer than 3 hours after the meal.

I believe that I know enough about the topic (through research and direct contact with senior medical professionals) to enable me to make that argument. You could try offering positive evidence that Meredith's specific meal would dramatically affect T(lag) times if you are interested in engaging in a positive debate on this subject. If all you're going to do is say "well the experimental meals weren't EXACTLY the same as Meredith's meal, so this invalidates the comparison", then I can't carry on a meaningful debate with you I'm afraid.
 
Yeah, you know how it feels to be the parent of a person doing 26 years in prison for murder. :rolleyes:

I was almost a parent of a person doing 7 years in prison for trying to get a police officer out of his home (however,the police officer was found to have entered his home illegally). 7 years in prison is a life wrecker even at only 1/4 the time that Amanda got!

I also wonder if your statement wasn't a good sample of your accuracy in discussing Amanda.

Good discussion continuing about the Tod as determined by gastric emptying !
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that I did ask a GI physician who actually consulted with a pathologist:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6477163&postcount=12363

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well LJ, you are going to love this. I just hung up with my favorite GI doc after a long discussion about t(lag) and t(1/2) etc. He said he finds it extrememly difficult to believe the entire meal was still in the stomach after even 3 hours. He said "No way."

He was telling me about the transit studies they do for gastroparesis and he said they feed the patient a small amount of pudding-like substance and the average time to t(1/2) is 90 minutes. He said he even checked with a pathologist after he received my email. He said "Obviously if someone ate big chunks of steak or lots of fiber it would take longer but still not 3 or 4 hours."

I asked if he thought the entire meal could have been at the end of the small intestine after, perhaps, 5 hours and he said yes but then there wouldn't have been 500cc in the stomach. So unless Meredith ate substantially an hour before dying at 11:30PM then he just doesn't see how the ToD could have even been 9:30 without having something in her small intestine.

I work with dozens of GI docs and anesthesiologists, etc. so I will keep asking around. I have mostly professional relationships with the physicians with whom I work so I will have to find the opportune time to ask as they are all so busy. Most of the time I barely have time to answer whatever questions they are asking before they "have to go". But plenty of them call me at home (just like tonight) so I will certainly ask when that happens. After all, home is MY time so I should be able to ask an OT question

One thing he did say was GI docs are more interested in t(1/2) than t(lag) because t(1/2) is specifically studied for GI malfunction. He thinks forensic pathologists would be better versed in the area of stomach contents as they relate to ToD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

While I firmly do not believe anyone can state as a matter of fact Meredith died at 9:05 or 9:15 I do believe we can surely state it was not 11PM, not 10:30PM, and most likely not even as early as 10:00PM.

Spooky - my consultant (who also holds a professorship in gastroenterology at a major London teaching hospital) had almost exactly the same opinion. He said that he's never even seen a 3 hour lag phase, but agreed that it's at the outer limit of experimental possibility. He literally smiled at the suggestion that T(lag) could be over 4 hours under any conceivable circumstances. It just cannot happen, unless the patient has enormous gastric problems or is on the verge of death.
 
You are searching for a level of precision which is not only unattainable, but also irrelevant. If you are unsatisfied that the research hasn't exactly replicated the meal Meredith ate, then by all means carry on crying foul. But all the available evidence shows that ANY small-to-moderate sized meal consumed by a healthy adult without alcohol will not remain wholly within the stomach beyond 3.5 hours after the meal, and only has a minute chance of still being wholly inside the stomach any longer than 3 hours after the meal.

I believe that I know enough about the topic (through research and direct contact with senior medical professionals) to enable me to make that argument. You could try offering positive evidence that Meredith's specific meal would dramatically affect T(lag) times if you are interested in engaging in a positive debate on this subject. If all you're going to do is say "well the experimental meals weren't EXACTLY the same as Meredith's meal, so this invalidates the comparison", then I can't carry on a meaningful debate with you I'm afraid.

You're right that you can't have a meaningful debate about this...since you don't have the remotest idea what the test subjects ate. You also can't compare findings based on an autopsy with findings based on breath tests.
 
Oh and additionally: the standard test meals usually consist of either porridge oats (made with milk) with syrup or jam, or egg sandwiches plus a glass of milk. The test meals are usually between 200g and 400g in weight. This is comparable (although obviously not exactly similar) to Meredith's last meal of pizza and apple crumble - the stomach contents weighed 500g, implying about 400-450g of ingested food, plus 50-100g of stomach juices.
 
You're right that you can't have a meaningful debate about this...since you don't have the remotest idea what the test subjects ate. You also can't compare findings based on an autopsy with findings based on breath tests.

Why not?
 
Oh and additionally: the standard test meals usually consist of either porridge oats (made with milk) with syrup or jam, or egg sandwiches plus a glass of milk. The test meals are usually between 200g and 400g in weight. This is comparable (although obviously not exactly similar) to Meredith's last meal of pizza and apple crumble - the stomach contents weighed 500g, implying about 400-450g of ingested food, plus 50-100g of stomach juices.

Sorry, that won't do. What were the meals in abstracts you cited? If you don't know, then it invalidates those experiments as having any comparison to Meredith's stomach contents.
 
Great post PDiGirolamo
Meridith died within minutes of coming home,her call to her mum was interupted when she was attacked.For a man like rudy who is such an expert at getting into locked property it probally should not have taken him long to figure out how to exit the cottage even if the front door could not be opened without a key

Since that night a second crime has taken place,the framing of two innocent bystanders by the Perugian authorities

Does anybody know if the postal police computer tecnician who examined the hard drives was one of the police officers given an award,probally organised by Mignini to keep them loyal,for their work on this case.
 

You said, "Had Meredith eaten a 700g steak, with a large baked potato and a huge pile of creamed spinach, all washed down with half a bottle of red wine, I'd agree with your assertion." So you agree that the content of the food plays a role in the time for gastric emptying, then you cite two papers that don't mention the content of the food in the abstracts.
 
Ah that fine bloke stilicho has accused me of being a "liar", in an arena where I have no recourse. What a lovely individual. It wouldn't be so bad if he were correct. But he isn't.

He proclaims that Lalli put the time of death at 2-4 hours after eating, rather than the 2-3 hours that I quoted (and which Sollecito's defence lawyers also quoted). His reference for my "lie" is the Massei report. Unfortunately, stilicho hasn't read the report properly. The part at which the "2-4 hours" range is mentioned by Lalli is strictly in relation to the discovery of still-partially-undigested food in the stomach: Lalli indeed states - as reported in the Massei report - that this means death occurred between two and four hours after ingestion.

But if stilicho were to trouble himself to read a little further in the Massei report, he'd see that Lalli is quoted - TWICE - stating unequivocally that the other determining factor (the lack of passage of food from the stomach to the duodenum) means that in his opinion Meredith must have died within two to three hours of eating her final meal:

Dr. Lalli specified that [110] death was considered as occurring not more than two to three hours after eating (page 47 of the hearing transcript, and the adjustment described in the footnote on February 13, 2008). (Massie report translation, p115)

Answering specific questions from the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, Dr. Lalli stated that death had intervened two to three hours after eating (page 47) (Massei report translation, p115/116)

I suppose it's too much to ask that stilicho comes to visit this forum - of which he's also a member - to apologise for calling me a liar? Yeah, I suppose it is too much to ask.
 
Ah that fine bloke stilicho has accused me of being a "liar", in an arena where I have no recourse. What a lovely individual. It wouldn't be so bad if he were correct. But he isn't.

He proclaims that Lalli put the time of death at 2-4 hours after eating, rather than the 2-3 hours that I quoted (and which Sollecito's defence lawyers also quoted). His reference for my "lie" is the Massei report. Unfortunately, stilicho hasn't read the report properly. The part at which the "2-4 hours" range is mentioned by Lalli is strictly in relation to the discovery of still-partially-undigested food in the stomach: Lalli indeed states - as reported in the Massei report - that this means death occurred between two and four hours after ingestion.

But if stilicho were to trouble himself to read a little further in the Massei report, he'd see that Lalli is quoted - TWICE - stating unequivocally that the other determining factor (the lack of passage of food from the stomach to the duodenum) means that in his opinion Meredith must have died within two to three hours of eating her final meal:

Dr. Lalli specified that [110] death was considered as occurring not more than two to three hours after eating (page 47 of the hearing transcript, and the adjustment described in the footnote on February 13, 2008). (Massie report translation, p115)

Answering specific questions from the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, Dr. Lalli stated that death had intervened two to three hours after eating (page 47) (Massei report translation, p115/116)

I suppose it's too much to ask that stilicho comes to visit this forum - of which he's also a member - to apologise for calling me a liar? Yeah, I suppose it is too much to ask.

LJ,

It's getting to be a bore, reading about your issues with other boards. Would you be so kind and stop bringing it up in this thread?
 
You said, "Had Meredith eaten a 700g steak, with a large baked potato and a huge pile of creamed spinach, all washed down with half a bottle of red wine, I'd agree with your assertion." So you agree that the content of the food plays a role in the time for gastric emptying, then you cite two papers that don't mention the content of the food in the abstracts.

The solid meal content in the Hellmig et al study was one egg sandwich on buttered white bread (ie two slices of bread with chopped egg and mayonnaise filling), and a glass of milk. (I do not know the contents of the solid meal in the other study I cited tonight, but the T(lag) range was the same as the Hellmig et al study). This meal is not, I believe, sufficiently dissimilar in either quantity or composition to Meredith's last meal for there to be a significant distortion of the T(lag) range. If you think otherwise, then please point out why.
 
LJ,

It's getting to be a bore, reading about your issues with other boards. Would you be so kind and stop bringing it up in this thread?

When I'm accused of lying, I quite like to be able to defend myself. Moreover, there was an important point of correction and clarification to be made on what the autopsy pathologist's real opinion on the ToD actually was.
 
"Two little boys had ....."

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.


I will come straight back & keep it short & sweet.....

You don't seem to understand the science,
the limits of it applicability,
the actual relevance to this case
the inherent variation between subjects and in any one subject
the uncertainty over mealtimes [start & duration]
the issues over the autopsy
the fact that only ranges can be the outcome

Your confusion over the 8.00 issue and consequent struggle to explain using median heights is is a prime example - as it happens I had stats as part of a degree course :)

The connection between different opinions given and the fact that gastric analysis cant be used to give precise ToD's should be apparent even to you.

Indeed the fact that the defence still seem to be going for a 9.30 - 10.00 range, in line with the 9.30 -10.30 ? in the trial should alert you to a problem with your methods.

Now I have no wish to play doctors with you for the following reasons
- your initial inability to incorporate the existence of showers into the hokey-cokey theory
- your inability to take on board the Macavity alibi issue regarding C's evidence
- your inability to accept the direct testimony of AK on the PL issue we discussed recently
- shall we ignore the original authors inability to work out the 'broken window' problem or even understand the straightforward 'screensaver' timing issue
- etc etc etc

But lets set you a problem & see if you can work it out.

Assuming your science is accurate ---

By being alive after 9 , MK is already in the 2 % tail - after 9.30 never mind 10 she is off the charts.
Now before you publish your finding's on this very unusual subject is there anything [from the autopsy report perhaps] which might explain this apparent statistical anomaly.

As Rolf Harris might say - Do you know what it is yet ?

.
 
Last edited:
You're right that you can't have a meaningful debate about this...since you don't have the remotest idea what the test subjects ate. You also can't compare findings based on an autopsy with findings based on breath tests.

The "why not?" question also applies to your second sentence......
 
When I'm accused of lying, I quite like to be able to defend myself. Moreover, there was an important point of correction and clarification to be made on what the autopsy pathologist's real opinion on the ToD actually was.

Then just offer the correction and clarification.

Your personal problems with that site and the posters there, are between you and them. There's no need to constantly bring it up in this forum.
 
You said, "Had Meredith eaten a 700g steak, with a large baked potato and a huge pile of creamed spinach, all washed down with half a bottle of red wine, I'd agree with your assertion." So you agree that the content of the food plays a role in the time for gastric emptying, then you cite two papers that don't mention the content of the food in the abstracts.

You have lost this argument Alt+F4 when you are in a hole stop digging.This issue of TOD proves that by accepting a TOD of 11.45 the trial of first instance had more in common with kangaroo court than a fair triall
 
Oh and additionally: the standard test meals usually consist of either porridge oats (made with milk) with syrup or jam, or egg sandwiches plus a glass of milk. The test meals are usually between 200g and 400g in weight. This is comparable (although obviously not exactly similar) to Meredith's last meal of pizza and apple crumble - the stomach contents weighed 500g, implying about 400-450g of ingested food, plus 50-100g of stomach juices.

Since you have done so much research, then you would know that the contents of stomach were recorded as 500 cc which is 500 ml, but this would only be 500g if it was pure water, but 500 cc would be 250g of flour for example, so you would need to know how much Meredith ate and what it consisted of before it was digested.

You should also know that the size of the meal has an effect on the lag phase by a large margin according to studies, so saying "between 200g and 400g" is not precise.

You have also cited an article which I do not remember you citing before, IIRC, but I have to ask what is wrong with http://www.ijp-online.com/article.a...e=4;spage=238;epage=240;aulast=Awasthi;type=0 which is from this post?
 
Last edited:
The solid meal content in the Hellmig et al study was one egg sandwich on buttered white bread (ie two slices of bread with chopped egg and mayonnaise filling), and a glass of milk. (I do not know the contents of the solid meal in the other study I cited tonight, but the T(lag) range was the same as the Hellmig et al study). This meal is not, I believe, sufficiently dissimilar in either quantity or composition to Meredith's last meal for there to be a significant distortion of the T(lag) range. If you think otherwise, then please point out why.

There was no mention of an egg sandwich on the link you posted. Could you post the one that mentions the test meals? Thanks.
 
I will come straight back & keep it short & sweet.....

You don't seem to understand the science
the limits of it applicability,
the actual relevance to this case
the inherent variation between subjects and in any one subject
the uncertainty over mealtimes [start & duration]
the issues over the autopsy
the fact that only ranges can be the outcome*

Your confusion over the 8.00 issue and consequent struggle to explain using median heights is is a prime example - as it happens I had stats as part of a degree course :)

The connection between different opinions given and the fact that gastric analysis cant be used to give precise ToD's should be apparent even to you.

Indeed the fact that the defence seem to be going for a 9.30 - 10.00 range as opposed to the 9.30 -10.30 ? in the trial should alert you to a problem with your methods.

Now I have no wish to play doctors with you for the following reasons
- your initial inability to incorporate the existence of showers into the hokey-cokey theory
- your inability to take on board the Macavity alibi issue regarding C's evidence
- your inability to accept the direct testimony of AK on the PL issue we discussed recently
- shall we ignore the original authors inability to work out the 'broken window' problem or even understand the straightforward 'screensaver' timing issue
- etc etc etc

But lets set you a problem & see if you can work it out.

Assuming your science is accurate ---

By being alive after 9 , MK is already in the last 2 % tail - after 9.30 or 10 she is off the charts.
Now before you publish your finding's on this very unusual subject is there anything [from the autopsy report perhaps] which might explain this apparent statistical anomaly.

As Rolf Harris might say - Do you know what it is yet ?

.

And I have no reason to do extra work for you either. You refuse to engage in good faith - I can only presume that's because going off on a tangent is easier to you than addressing the debate directly. I've laid out my position as clearly as I can. What's more, it's entirely in line with the arguments set out by Sollecito's defence team in the appeal. You think you're right (or at least that I'm wrong). I think that I'm right. You refuse to show me where you believe I'm wrong. Therefore, no more need be discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom