Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Morally? Who knows. But without doubt, by the late evening of November 1st when she murdered Meredith Kercher with Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.

 

[LondonJohn]

hey lj

who is "the bard"?

lxxx

Well, it's generally shorthand for "The Bard of Avon" - a name bestowed on William Shakespeare, perhaps Britain's greatest playwright. However, somebody with comparable skills chose it - very aptly - as a screen name on another site.

 

[Dan O.]

Huh? Please explain.

What would you do if you received a call from a friend but they didn't talk back when you answered? Would you call them back with the assumption that you just had a bad circuit. (I get callbacks even from people I don't know when I dial a wrong number and hang up before it is answered)

When you then return the call and it just rings and rings, what do you think?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Do you think that Massei has the outer (i.e. later) limit of the time range correct?

PS Using terms such as "groupies" is hardly likely to work to your advantage in terms of argument in good faith..........

What figures are you assuming to represent the range? I note this from Massei

This data, he observed, produced a curve, called a Gaussian curve, the middle of which indicated 22:50 pm as the most probable time of death, with a 95% tolerance level; the range had to be between 21 and a half to 30 and a half hours from the [time of] measurement: the time of death being thus circumscribed within a temporal region ranging from 18:20 pm on November 1, 2007 to 03:30 am on November 2, 2007 (page 16, Professor Introna’s report).

i.e. a range that is so wide as to be impossible at both ends by a number of hours based on Meredith's return to the cottage and Rudy being spotted out clubbing. It's also a Gaussian curve so I'm not sure why you'd be interested in the outer ranges, given that they are a massively lower probability while not being impossible?


Re Groupies, that wasn't posted on this site so don't read across onto a heavily moderated board please. We're all as bad as each other with "guilters" and "groupies" but not here.

 

[LondonJohn]

You take this position because Meridith's phone activity contradicts your opinion. Her phone activity must not be ignored or taken lightly. Do you honestly think that Meredith was playing with her phone like a child?

I agree. In my opinion, neither of these calls can be explained in terms of Meredith lying on her bed and messing around with her phone. If she'd wanted to call her UK bank, she'd easily have realised that she'd dialled a number without the requisite international prefixes, and would have redialled accordingly. And why on earth would she idly call her UK voicemail, but disconnect immediately? She either wanted to listen to her UK voicemail messages or she didn't.

Of course, the other part of Meredith's phone activity which ties this all together is the aborted 8.56pm call to her mother in hospital. I think I'm correct in thinking that Meredith hadn't yet spoken with her mother that day, but that she made a point of calling her every day. It seems very likely that Meredith woke up on the afternoon of the 1st with a hangover, and went fairly soon after waking to her English friends' house. Therefore, the first proper opportunity she'd have had to call her mother would have been after she left Sophie Purton just before 9pm. She did of course try to call at this point, but the call was cut off. Yet the first court would have us believe that she entered her house and mooched around on her bed for a good couple of hours, without remembering or bothering to attempt to call her sick mother again.

In this context, the only explanation that makes any sense is that either a) Meredith's first call at 8.56pm was interrupted by a confrontation, or that b) the call genuinely dropped through a loss of mobile signal, but Meredith was confronted and attacked shortly after arriving home, before she had the chance to call her mother again.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Well, it's generally shorthand for "The Bard of Avon" - a name bestowed on William Shakespeare, perhaps Britain's greatest playwright. However, somebody with comparable skills chose it - very aptly - as a screen name on another site.

The answer to your question s_pepys is that The Bard is a poster on perugiamurderfile.org, the main pro-prosecution / pro-information site depending on your point of view and LJ is reading across to it. PMF did all of the translation of Massei etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

What figures are you assuming to represent the range? I note this from Massei

This data, he observed, produced a curve, called a Gaussian curve, the middle of which indicated 22:50 pm as the most probable time of death, with a 95% tolerance level; the range had to be between 21 and a half to 30 and a half hours from the [time of] measurement: the time of death being thus circumscribed within a temporal region ranging from 18:20 pm on November 1, 2007 to 03:30 am on November 2, 2007 (page 16, Professor Introna’s report).

i.e. a range that is so wide as to be impossible at both ends by a number of hours based on Meredith's return to the cottage and Rudy being spotted out clubbing. It's also a Gaussian curve so I'm not sure why you'd be interested in the outer ranges, given that they are a massively lower probability while not being impossible?


Re Groupies, that wasn't posted on this site so don't read across onto a heavily moderated board please. We're all as bad as each other with "guilters" and "groupies" but not here.

You're selectively quoting from only one expert's range of ToD, based on only one parameter (body temperature and the Henssge nomogram). Do you think Meredith's stomach/intestine contents are consistent with an 11.30-11.45pm ToD?

Do you think that the terms "groupie" and "guilter" are equivalents? What does "guilter" mean or even imply - other than someone who believes in guilt. Call me a "not-guilter" and I'll be totally fine with that. Call me a groupie and I'll not be fine with that. It's derogatory and unnecessary.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You take this position because Meridith's phone activity contradicts your opinion. Her phone activity must not be ignored or taken lightly. Do you honestly think that Meredith was playing with her phone like a child?

I didn't say that. However, since you ask the question, I don't find Massei's reasoning that she was playing with her phone a solid line of reasoning albeit that it could be correct. We'll never know.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You're selectively quoting from only one expert's range of ToD, based on only one parameter (body temperature and the Henssge nomogram). Do you think Meredith's stomach/intestine contents are consistent with an 11.30-11.45pm ToD?

Could you please answer my question on what ranges you are using and why you find the outer time limit on the later side to be of pertinence?

The stomach contents / ToD arguments are, in my opinion, some of the most speculative aspects of the online debate and have established precisely nothing. I am content with the judge's reasoning on ToD. The appeal provides an opportunity to challenge it.

 

[s_pepys]

Well, it's generally shorthand for "The Bard of Avon" - a name bestowed on William Shakespeare, perhaps Britain's greatest playwright. However, somebody with comparable skills chose it - very aptly - as a screen name on another site.

oh, i see. thanks

lxxx

 

[SomeAlibi]

I have made an immense effort to obtain and catalog the facts of this case, and I am happy to share them with all who are interested.

Charlie (and Bruce Fisher)

Do you have access to an Italian language version of Massei? If so, could you be kind enough to provide a copy of pages 288 and 304 of the original so that we could complete the translation of Massei for all people wanting to read it in the English speaking world? This would be a service to all concerned with this case.


Thanks
SA

 

[LondonJohn]

Could you please answer my question on what ranges you are using and why you find the outer time limit on the later side to be of pertinence?

The stomach contents / ToD arguments are, in my opinion, some of the most speculative aspects of the online debate and have established precisely nothing. I am content with the judge's reasoning on ToD. The appeal provides an opportunity to challenge it.

You were the one who replied to my original question by saying "The time range is in Massei". Then when I asked a question about this "time range", you referred selectively (deliberately) to a huge range, based only upon body temperature. Then you asked ME to define the range that you yourself had introduced!

Which of the medical experts, when questioned on the stand or in writing about ToD with reference to the stomach/intestine contents, said that the ToD could be any longer than four hours after Meredith ate her last meal (parts of which were still recognisable in her stomach)? What did the autopsy pathologist say about ToD? Was it that it had to have been within 2-3 hours of Meredith's last meal? What time was Meredith's last meal (by the way, this would refer to the START of the last meal, since this is when the clock starts for stomach emptying timings)?

With all that in mind, do you think that it's possible that Meredith died at 11.30-11.45pm, as the Massei report claimed?

 

[Dan O.]

Calling anybody a guilter or groupie on this forum is not fine. You can refer to a group using a name that is associated with that group but not if you are clearly discussing a particular poster.

I got this from earlier discussions in the forum management section but it is currently embodied in the membership agreement as rule 0: Be civil and polite.

 

[Justinian2]

[...]
What time on November 1st 2007 do you think Amanda Knox died?

LondonJohn, have your morning cup of coffee before your first post.

I think the Knox family was resurrected on Dec 18th, 2010.

PS, I don't see anything wrong with discussing groups and associations. In fact, I believe it's good. What's bad is acting on one member of a group as if it is the group. Each of us is different. Amanda wasn't part of a group that killed Meridith, for example. In fact that group (Amanda, Raffaele, and Guede) never existed!

 

[Jungle Jim]

What would you do if you received a call from a friend but they didn't talk back when you answered? Would you call them back with the assumption that you just had a bad circuit. (I get callbacks even from people I don't know when I dial a wrong number and hang up before it is answered)

When you then return the call and it just rings and rings, what do you think?

When I get a call that that doesn't connect I usually call the number back if I am not busy. If I call the number and it either just rings or I get voice mail I figure the person is otherwise engaged, called me accidentally, or didn't hear the tone announcing an incoming call. I don't assume the person is in trouble.

What I don't understand is your idea that Rudy was trying to alert Meredith's friends that she was in trouble. First, the buttons on the phone that were touched are associated with the bank and voice mail--not one of the numbers in her address book. Second, if for example Rudy had pressed Amanda's number, what do you think Amanda would have done after calling her back and getting no response?

 

[SomeAlibi]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif[/qimg] Calling anybody a guilter or groupie on this forum is not fine. You can refer to a group using a name that is associated with that group but not if you are clearly discussing a particular poster.

I got this from earlier discussions in the forum management section but it is currently embodied in the membership agreement as rule 0: Be civil and polite.

So just to be doubly clear, we are all straight that that didn't occur on this board?

 

[SomeAlibi]

You were the one who replied to my original question by saying "The time range is in Massei". Then when I asked a question about this "time range", you referred selectively (deliberately) to a huge range, based only upon body temperature. Then you asked ME to define the range that you yourself had introduced!

Which of the medical experts, when questioned on the stand or in writing about ToD with reference to the stomach/intestine contents, said that the ToD could be any longer than four hours after Meredith ate her last meal (parts of which were still recognisable in her stomach)? What did the autopsy pathologist say about ToD? Was it that it had to have been within 2-3 hours of Meredith's last meal? What time was Meredith's last meal (by the way, this would refer to the START of the last meal, since this is when the clock starts for stomach emptying timings)?

With all that in mind, do you think that it's possible that Meredith died at 11.30-11.45pm, as the Massei report claimed?

You are not correct. You asked me what I thought about the upper time limit range. I've asked you to explain what range you believe that represents and why you are interested in it given that it represents a normal distribution and is therefore statistically unlikely to be relevant to the case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Incidentally, I see people elsewhere crowing about the ToD issue, but there are two important points as I understand it:

1) If Frank is correct in his reporting of proceedings, the path is still open for new expert witnesses to testify for the defence on ToD (and other issues) once the new DNA testing has been conducted;

2) Even if no new ToD experts are called in, this absolutely does not mean that the appeal court accepts the first court's reasoning in putting ToD at 11.45pm. After all, even the witnesses heard in the first trial (including all the prosecution experts) put ToD from stomach/intestine analysis at no longer than 4 hours after eating, and the police's own autopsy pathologist (Lalli) stated that Meredith can't have died any longer than 3 hours after eating.

Since it's been fairly well established through her friends' testimony that the pizza meal was eaten at around 6.30pm, the first court was clearly incorrect in finding the ToD as 11.45pm. And 11.45pm was pretty much the only possible time that would tie together the prosecution case. Any ToD before 10.30pm, and the prosecution "witnesses" start to get thrown out, and it starts to become more and more improbable that Knox or Sollecito were involved. And if the appeal court goes with Lalli's (correct) 3-hour upper limit, then it's clear that Meredith was killed between 9pm and around 9.30pm. By Guede. Alone (or conceivably with others as yet unidentified).

And since re-examination of TOD has not been granted by the court of appeal, your ruminations don't mean very much...do they?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's interesting that the case of Knox and Sollecito is being likened to a war. As we all know, the first casualty of war is truth. Shouldn't we be more concerned here about the facts, rather than who wins?

Exactly.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are not correct. You asked me what I thought about the upper time limit range. I've asked you to explain what range you believe that represents and why you are interested in it given that it represents a normal distribution and is therefore statistically unlikely to be relevant to the case.

Huh? This all started by me asking you what time you think Meredith died. You won't give your opinion on this, which is your prerogative. Instead, you make a nebulous reference to "time ranges" in the Massei report.

For what it's worth, I believe that the expert witnesses who testified in the first trial were able to implicitly narrow Meredith's death down to some time between 9pm and 10.30pm, based on the stomach/duodenum contents found at autopsy. I further believe that only one of the expert witnesses - Dr Lalli - gave an accurate assessment of ToD after eating (2-3 hours after eating). My belief in this is through talking with professionals in the field, and reading (and understanding) medical research literature.

I therefore believe that Meredith probably died between 9pm and 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10pm. And I believe that the appeal court will either reach a similar conclusion (in a way that Massei inexplicably did not), or that it will allow the defence to introduce new expert witnesses who will testify convincingly to this effect.

But I can understand why you don't want to get pinned down on ToD. It rather drives a coach and horses through the prosecution's original case, doesn't it?