Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

I hope it doesn't come across that I am pushing a Meredith-had-a-weird-gut theory of the crime. It just seems to me that this is a flaw in the current argument, or at least the calculated probabilities.

It certainly does come across as you grasping at straws to try and keep your pet theory afloat. The only evidence you have for any of these straws is that you want the time of death to be later. When you then use the same straw to argue for a later time of death we call that circular reasoning.

 

[platonov]

Kevin,

I am mainly arguing with your calculation of the percentages.

Also, I came across this quote:

Quote:
Results:  The mean ± SD of half gastric emptying time (T1/2) of a fluid test meal was determined to be 80.5 ± 22.1 min and for Tlag to be 40.3 ± 10.2 min. However, the T1/2 and Tlag of solid meals did not fit to normal distribution and thus median and percentiles were determined. The median time of T1/2 for solids was 127 min (25–75% percentiles: 112.0–168.3 min) and 81.5 min for Tlag (25–75% percentiles: 65.5–102.0 min).

from back in September (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6389510&postcount=8215). That seems to be saying that a calculation like the one you are doing, can't be done. Again, I'm mainly arguing with your calculations of percentages here. I don't see how one can really say more than that in the experience of gastroenterologists, you don't see lag times of more than four hours (of whatever it is). The numbers just give a false sense of precision.

Those are LondonJohn's calculations, not mine. I know of no reason to think they are not accurate but they aren't my work.


If you'd read a bit further, you'd have seen (as LondonJohn recently explained again just recently for you) that t(lag) doesn't follow a normal distribution because the left hand side of the curve has a hard limit at t=0. However the right hand side of the curve is the same shape as a normal distribution. That is all the text you quoted is saying.

No, KL you have completely misunderstood the point being made in the quote that shutlt posted.

It has nothing to do with the left tail t=0 issue which is obviously common to both liquid and solid meals.

The authors are stating [as shutlt indicated] that the normal distn. which applies to liquids does not apply to solids in their study.

This is obvious on a straightforward reading - it doesn't even require a basic understanding of stats.

This kind of misunderstanding is why your arguments fail the basic 'smell test' and a discussion on the basis of even simple stats is futile.

.

 

[platonov]

BTW,
I believe platonov was asking for any human translations of relevant appeal sections on the TOD issue. katy_did had provided one such translation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6220709&postcount=4335

Thank you.
It doesn't cover the section fully but it is helpful.

My earlier hesitant stab at the machine translated section is still as far as we can go I think but with one possible caveat - this would seem to indicate its just a lawyers summation without any input from a specialist ; they are just saying 6.30 - 7.00 + 3 = 9.30 -10.00 ?

Whether they have any further expert testimony in addition to what was put forward at the trial or how much emphasis will be place on this - we are none the wiser.

I could be completely wrong on this but the fact they seem to spend much of this portion 'whining' about Weight & Temp may indicate they don't have any major new argument to make here.

 

[shuttlt]

It certainly does come across as you grasping at straws to try and keep your pet theory afloat. The only evidence you have for any of these straws is that you want the time of death to be later. When you then use the same straw to argue for a later time of death we call that circular reasoning.

Oh, dear! Look, I just think that if we are going to play armchair experts we should investigate the ways in which we could be wrong, particularly if we are going to claim things definitely did, or did not happen. Personally I think that, if this time of death stuff pans out, it is a good argument for innocence. I just think that the problem with not being an expert is that one can oversimplify things and/or make significant errors. A lot of the time one can muddle through, but it's hard to tell when you go wrong. This whole business about her already being in the top 2% just to have made it home concerns me that some error or other has been made.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you.
It doesn't cover the section fully but it is helpful.

My earlier hesitant stab at the machine translated section is still as far as we can go I think but with one possible caveat - this would seem to indicate its just a lawyers summation without any input from a specialist ; they are just saying 6.30 - 7.00 + 3 = 9.30 -10.00 ?

Whether they have any further expert testimony in addition to what was put forward at the trial or how much emphasis will be place on this - we are none the wiser.

I could be completely wrong on this but the fact they seem to spend much of this portion 'whining' about Weight & Temp may indicate they don't have any major new argument to make here.

If I recall looking at this before Massei makes a conclusion based on Prof Ronchi's guess that the ligatures were not applied or had been imperfectly applied. The appeal points out that they were properly applied and the video evidence of that exists. IIRC, Massei does not mention this. The appeal points out the error in accepting this hypothesis as correct.

 

[shuttlt]

But is what the defense claim the video shows the only interpretation of the video? Don't they also claim the computer logs show that they used the computer all night?

 

[RoseMontague]

But is what the defense claim the video shows the only interpretation of the video? Don't they also claim the computer logs show that they used the computer all night?

I am sure there will be at least two different interpretations of the video. Massei makes the assumption that supports a later TOD without mentioning the evidence of this video. The appeal points this out and makes a statement that this part of the autopsy was done correctly. I believe it is as much a comment on Massei's biased reasoning or cherry picking of evidence as anything else. The whole TOD issue is a big part of the appeals and the defense is arguing for an earlier TOD.

 

[shuttlt]

I am sure there will be at least two different interpretations of the video. Massei makes the assumption that supports a later TOD without mentioning the evidence of this video. The appeal points this out and makes a statement that this part of the autopsy was done correctly. I believe it is as much a comment on Massei's biased reasoning or cherry picking of evidence as anything else. The whole TOD issue is a big part of the appeals and the defense is arguing for an earlier TOD.

True, but if we get into the habit of taking the defenses word for what the evidence shows, then we've all but assumed which side is right. This case is full of people saying stuff with great assurance that turns out not to be quite as clear cut as it seemed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

apple crumble

True, but if we get into the habit of taking the defenses word for what the evidence shows, then we've all but assumed which side is right. This case is full of people saying stuff with great assurance that turns out not to be quite as clear cut as it seemed.

shuttlt,

Assume that the ligatures were not applied correctly, and that digested material was accidently displaced the length of the small intestine (both dubious, IMHO). Even so, we still have the presence of 500 mL of material in the stomach. We would then have to assume that this is a very large serving of apple crumble. That seems to be at odds with the testimony of her friends. I am sure that Sophie's apple crumble can compete with anyone's in quality, but 500 mL is more than I would want after eating pizza.

 

[RoseMontague]

True, but if we get into the habit of taking the defenses word for what the evidence shows, then we've all but assumed which side is right. This case is full of people saying stuff with great assurance that turns out not to be quite as clear cut as it seemed.

Part of Raffaele's appeal deals with the lack of reasoning and/or presenting the prosecution side of the argument and not the defense side when coming to a conclusion. The proper way would be to examine both sides and explain why the conclusion fell on one side of the opinion or the other. It is easy to come to a conclusion if the other side of the argument is ignored.

Naturally, in all judgments the exposition of the facts is an essential part of the provision. However, when one is faced with an in-depth illustration of hearings and witness testimonies (quotes which in this case are partial or inaccurate), whilst the space dedicated to the reasoning that guided the Judges to accept one theory rather than another is almost non-existent, this signifies that the judgment has not fulfilled its duty to explain its reasoning.
The imbalance between the exposition of evidence and reasoning requires that the provision be reprimanded because, alongside the extremely long summary of the trial, the enunciation of the choice to embrace one theory [rather than another] translates into a sort of act of faith in one of the various hypotheses under consideration.

 

[shuttlt]

Halides1,

In which case the video footage doesn't matter and tells us nothing of importance.

 

[shuttlt]

RoseMontague,

I can't think of anything to disagree with in your last post. The only thing that I'd add is to echo the last line of your quote, for me "to embrace one theory [rather than another]" would be an "act of faith" based on what I know at present.

 

[moodstream]

In addition to all the stomach contents debate, there's another point which by itself nails the prosecution/court theory of a ToD at 11.30-11.45pm: Guede was already in the company of other people across town by 11.30pm. Now Guede was undoubtedly in the murder cottage after Meredith was stabbed - he left a fingerprint in Meredith's blood, and shoeprints in her blood. And even by his own account, he had blood on his clothing, meaning that he changed clothes once he got back to his apartment.

All of this means that the murder can't have happened any later than about 11.15pm (being generous).

So Guede's appearance across town at 11.30pm actually pushes the time of death back to before 10.30pm, in and of itself. I wonder if the people who met with Guede at 11.30pm will be brought in by the defence to testify in the appeal?

I did not know that. You would think that fact alone would destroy the prosecutions theory. Who was with Guede at 11:30pm? What is the source of that info.? Sorry to be so uninformed.

 

[RoseMontague]

Halides1,

In which case the video footage doesn't matter and tells us nothing of importance.

What I find really interesting is Prof Ronchi makes a guestimate of 200ml rather than 500ml and states he did not "see" evidence of the pizza contents, just the apple crumble. These difference of opinions between the medical examiner doing the autopsy and the prosecution's own witness are not fully explained but they are certainly worth noting.

 

[shuttlt]

I love this case. It's all but impossible to find a single "fact" that there isn't some contrary bit of evidence or expert opinion that introduces doubt.

 

[RoseMontague]

I did not know that. You would think that fact alone would destroy the prosecutions theory. Who was with Guede at 11:30pm? What is the source of that info.? Sorry to be so uninformed.

This information comes from Guede's own statements as presented in his appeal motivation. Unfortunately for Amanda and Raffaele, the police were not able to confirm his statement of who he was with at that time. If they have since been able to find that, I missed it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Forget the circus - I have just bolded the salient part of my reply.
Why do Foakers insist on ignoring the more important issues to concenrate on 'fluff' which wont win any debates or more importantly, court cases.

Hi there Platonov,
I am wondering something,
maybe you can help me out.
What does Foakers mean?

Does it mean Friends of Amanda Knox?
If so, can you you do me a favor?
As I always try to spell your nickname, Shuttlt, and others who post here correctly,
shouldn't the a+k in Foakers be capitalized, since these letters signify you are writing about a person, whose name is Amanda Knox? FoAKer.
If so, can you please start doing that?
Thanks,
RWVBWL

PS-Platonov, I bet you that many "colpevolisti" luv using that FoAKer term, since it has a nice sound to it, very similiar to a certain cuss word I hear all the time.
Agree?

PSS-Platonov, don't you find it odd that many "colpevolisti" call the Knox and Mella's family a "clan"?
I certainly do, since the only time I ever here the term "clan" is with Ku Klux in front of it.
Maybe I should expand my vocabulary and try to use that term more often:

Recently I read a very moving story that John, a member of the Kercher clan, wrote in The Daily Mail, an English newspaper.
In it, I noticed that he mentioned that Rudy Guede, a convicted killer of his daughter, was a drifter...
Here's a link in case you didn't read the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

Gosh Platonov, before you joined the discussion group I recall another member, Fulcanelli, was arguing strenuously against calling Rudy Guede a drifter.
I had always considered Rudy Guede to just be a basketball-playing, pot-selling guy who, while unlucky with the ladies, luved to dance.
But since John from the Kercher clan writes that Rudy Guede was a drifter,
I will just consider Rudy Guede a drifter too...
Peace,
RW

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

In addition to all the stomach contents debate, there's another point which by itself nails the prosecution/court theory of a ToD at 11.30-11.45pm: Guede was already in the company of other people across town by 11.30pm. Now Guede was undoubtedly in the murder cottage after Meredith was stabbed - he left a fingerprint in Meredith's blood, and shoeprints in her blood. And even by his own account, he had blood on his clothing, meaning that he changed clothes once he got back to his apartment.

All of this means that the murder can't have happened any later than about 11.15pm (being generous).

So Guede's appearance across town at 11.30pm actually pushes the time of death back to before 10.30pm, in and of itself. I wonder if the people who met with Guede at 11.30pm will be brought in by the defence to testify in the appeal?

I did not know that. You would think that fact alone would destroy the prosecutions theory. Who was with Guede at 11:30pm? What is the source of that info.? Sorry to be so uninformed.

I'm afraid no such source exists AFAIK bar RG - and London John !

.

 

[RoseMontague]

I love this case. It's all but impossible to find a single "fact" that there isn't some contrary bit of evidence or expert opinion that introduces doubt.

I agree. The question should be then; have you reached the point of reasonable doubt?

 

[platonov]

Hi there Platonov,
I am wondering something,
maybe you can help me out.
What does Foakers mean?

Does it mean Friends of Amanda Knox?
If so, can you you do me a favor?
As I always try to spell your nickname, Shuttlt, and others who post here correctly,
shouldn't the a+k in Foakers be capitalized, since these letters signify you are writing about a person, whose name is Amanda Knox? FoAKer.
If so, can you please start doing that?
Thanks,
RWVBWL

PS-Platonov, I bet you that many "colpevolisti" luv using that FoAKer term, since it has a nice sound to it, very similiar to a certain cuss word I hear all the time.
Agree?

PSS-Platonov, don't you find it odd that many "colpevolisti" call the Knox and Mella's family a "clan"?
I certainly do, since the only time I ever here the term "clan" is with Ku Klux in front of it.
Maybe I should expand my vocabulary and try to use that term more often:

Recently I read a very moving story that John, a member of the Kercher clan, wrote in The Daily Mail, an English newspaper.
In it, I noticed that he mentioned that Rudy Guede, a convicted killer of his daughter, was a drifter...
Here's a link in case you didn't read the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

Gosh Platonov, before you joined the discussion group I recall another member, Fulcanelli, was arguing strenuously against calling Rudy Guede a drifter.
I had always considered Rudy Guede to just be a basketball-playing, pot-selling guy who, while unlucky with the ladies, luved to dance.
But since John from the Kercher clan writes that Rudy Guede was a drifter,
I will just consider Rudy Guede a drifter too...
Peace,
RW

I'll ignore the fluff but comment on the drifter thing.

I did notice that initially - the power of language and media, perhaps. Was surprised there wasn't more of an immediate Aha !

In any case Kercher snr is entitled to call RG whatever he wishes - If you wish to follow him in this then, for the sake of consistency, be aware he also refers to AK as 'unequivocally, culpable'.

I actually use the term 'drifter' to highlight how RG is differentiated by the Foakers from the other 2 convicted of the murder.

In reality, as far as I am concerned RG is actually a convicted killer ( Murder & Sexual assault)
.