Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

If, as you say, you put four expert witnesses up against each other and three say three to four hours and only one says two to three hours, why would you support the single person who is at odds with three other experts?

Cos he's the one who's correct? Somebody has to be wrong, and the two (not three) who say 3-4 hours are not by definition twice as likely to be correct as the one who says 2-3 hours. As it happens, all the available research literature supports Lalli's position of 2-3 hours, and does not support the others' position of 3-4 hours. So I contend that Lalli is correct and the others are wrong.

But even if you go with the longest time given by the witnesses - 4 hours - that still places Meredith's death at no later than 10.30pm. Which is something of a problem to Sr Mignini and his prosecution case. As you know. What happens next?

 

[Fulcanelli]

But how many more mistakes might you have made in the presentation of your arguments which might not yet have been discovered? The fact that you still haven't properly explained whether you digitally doctored photographs to help your case, or what you meant by "I just woke up" as an excuse for repeatedly making false claims (even in the light of correctional posts) about the dates of the disco buses, makes it quite hard for people to accurately judge your credibility on other issues of fact.

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

Unlike LondonJohn who NEVER makes a mistake. And then we have SomeAlibi who may make a mistake, admits them when he makes them and then corrects them.

I know who I find most credible.

 

[LondonJohn]

Unlike LondonJohn who NEVER makes a mistake. And then we have SomeAlibi who may make a mistake, admits them when he makes them and then corrects them.

I know who I find most credible.

I made a mistake just this afternoon. I corrected it without fuss or fanfare within 10 minutes, and apologised. And it was a small and immediately-recognisable mistake, which had no bearing whatsoever on the opinions of anyone who has even the smallest passing interest on this case (i.e. everybody knows that Knox is alive, and that Meredith Kercher was the one who died on 1st November 2007).

This is very different from making mistakes of fact -for the second time, no less - when presenting a specific argument (e.g. the issue of November 1st disco buses), then erm........ disingenuously....... blaming it on having "just woken up" and even criticising those who had corrected him! The same applies to the digitally-altered photos. That doesn't sound much like arguing in good faith to me.

 

[s_pepys]

Cos he's the one who's correct? Somebody has to be wrong, and the two (not three) who say 3-4 hours are not by definition twice as likely to be correct as the one who says 2-3 hours. As it happens, all the available research literature supports Lalli's position of 2-3 hours, and does not support the others' position of 3-4 hours. So I contend that Lalli is correct and the others are wrong.

But even if you go with the longest time given by the witnesses - 4 hours - that still places Meredith's death at no later than 10.30pm. Which is something of a problem to Sr Mignini and his prosecution case. As you know. What happens next?

lj

NO IT DOES NOT!! for the 1000th time. stop stating untruths as definates.

lxxx

 

[LondonJohn]

lj

NO IT DOES NOT!! for the 1000th time. stop stating untruths as definates.

lxxx

What available medical research literature does not support Lalli's position? Can you link me to any of it? Thanks in advance.

 

[s_pepys]

the fact is that, unfortunately for everyone concerned, an accurate tod is impossible to achieve now without a confession or three. The window is too big according to the available literature. And even then the reliability of stomach contents as a method is not accurate enough. It depends on a great deal of different factors based on the victims health, state and the foods in question as well as many others.

And, before you say it again, im not going to trawl through all the cites again. This has been gone through numerous times with no conclusion.

Why?

because there is NO conclusion. Its time to move on to known facts

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

What available medical research literature does not support Lalli's position? Can you link me to any of it? Thanks in advance.

no i wont. your thanks is appreciated.

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

i do, however, encourage all readers who havnt yet checked this out 10 times over, to do so and make there own minds up. Now can we move on to productive discussion if thats possible on this thread at all?

lxxx

 

[LondonJohn]

no i wont. your thanks is appreciated.

lxxx

OK, so therefore you can add it to to other 999 times you've apparently made the same point. You're claiming I'm promoting an "untruth", yet you can't offer any evidence whatsoever to support that rather extreme claim. Therefore your opinion has no weight whatsoever.

I and others, on the other hand, have searched academic databases extensively for research in this area. And ALL of the (admittedly not voluminous) research indicates that three hours is an extreme upper limit for a small/moderate solid meal to start to pass from the stomach to the duodenum. We've cited our sources many times before. It's therefore time to say that we are right and you are wrong, unless and until you can show us a research paper from a recognised medical/scientific publication which shows otherwise (hint: I don't think you'll find one).

 

[LondonJohn]

the fact is that, unfortunately for everyone concerned, an accurate tod is impossible to achieve now without a confession or three. The window is too big according to the available literature. And even then the reliability of stomach contents as a method is not accurate enough. It depends on a great deal of different factors based on the victims health, state and the foods in question as well as many others.
And, before you say it again, im not going to trawl through all the cites again. This has been gone through numerous times with no conclusion.

Why?

because there is NO conclusion. Its time to move on to known facts

lxxx

Why therefore did the medical expert witnesses in the first trial all offer specific time ranges for ToD based on the stomach/intestinal contents found at autopsy? If you were correct, they would all have simply stated that they couldn't make any kind of judgement for a time range of ToD based on stomach/intestinal contents. Instead, they all quoted within a 2-hour range (even if they contradicted each other).

How would you explain that?

 

[bobc]

OK, so therefore you can add it to to other 999 times you've apparently made the same point. You're claiming I'm promoting an "untruth", yet you can't offer any evidence whatsoever to support that rather extreme claim. Therefore your opinion has no weight whatsoever.

I and others, on the other hand, have searched academic databases extensively for research in this area. And ALL of the (admittedly not voluminous) research indicates that three hours is an extreme upper limit for a small/moderate solid meal to start to pass from the stomach to the duodenum. We've cited our sources many times before. It's therefore time to say that we are right and you are wrong, unless and until you can show us a research paper from a recognised medical/scientific publication which shows otherwise (hint: I don't think you'll find one).

Out of interest I did a quick google and the second link found suggested a time of 2-4 hours. I think that answers the question to my satisfaction. The first link had times for various types of food but I would not consider it a very reliable source.

 

[tsig]

I wonder on what date "The Bard" thinks Meredith Kercher died? Funny how groupthink can work....

EDIT apologies - I hadn't noticed I'd got the name wrong. I had mistakenly thought that people were referring to the date and not the name. My mistake.

But how many more mistakes might you have made in the presentation of your arguments which might not yet have been discovered? The fact that you still haven't properly explained whether you digitally doctored photographs to help your case, or what you meant by "I just woke up" as an excuse for repeatedly making false claims (even in the light of correctional posts) about the dates of the disco buses, makes it quite hard for people to accurately judge your credibility on other issues of fact.

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

But how many more mistakes might you have made in the presentation of your arguments which might not yet have been discovered? The fact that you still haven't properly explained or what you meant by "I hadn't noticed" as an excuse for repeatedly making false claims (even in the light of correctional posts) about the name, makes it quite hard for people to accurately judge your credibility on other issues of fact.

 

[s_pepys]

OK, so therefore you can add it to to other 999 times you've apparently made the same point. You're claiming I'm promoting an "untruth", yet you can't offer any evidence whatsoever to support that rather extreme claim. Therefore your opinion has no weight whatsoever.

I and others, on the other hand, have searched academic databases extensively for research in this area. And ALL of the (admittedly not voluminous) research indicates that three hours is an extreme upper limit for a small/moderate solid meal to start to pass from the stomach to the duodenum. We've cited our sources many times before. It's therefore time to say that we are right and you are wrong, unless and until you can show us a research paper from a recognised medical/scientific publication which shows otherwise (hint: I don't think you'll find one).

lj

as have I. last time and the time before........ and there you go again spouting the same cherry picked nonsense as before. it has been shown to you by other posters on this thread and you still keep bleating on about it as if you havnt been shown. Im not trawling this thread again on your behalf.

i notice you say "we" are right. that is quite telling in itself. i would remind you that i am not part of any group, unlike you. Im interested in the case and also in the sociological aspects of this discussion in itself. I dont post or read on any of your "guilter/innocentisti" blogs and im not interested in taking sides. Its all a bit lord of the flies for me im afraid. I take all the points i read and check the ones of interest.

The tod was an interesting topic but the conclusion is that unfortunately the literature does not back you up and any more than the opposing view is backed up.

The only conclusion to be reached is that an accurate/reliable tod is not attainable with the facts as known. It is a judgement call and the judge decided an opposing view to you. as did two of the experts on the stand. That doesnt make them guilty but as a way to advance our knowledge of the case and, eventually, the truth. It is a dead-end.

lxxx

 

[Fulcanelli]

What DID Amanda do after calling Meredith and getting no response: She called another one of her roommates and then called both of Meredith's phones which at that time were not even ringing. Then she got her boyfriend and went back to the cottage where they found the broken window and Meredith's door locked. Then they called the police. Perhaps this is what Rudy was hoping would happen only 12 hours earlier.

Now what would have happened if Rudy dialed 112? First, he would know that the call would be recorded so if he said anything his voice would be on tape calling from the victim's phone. Rudy probably also knows that the police can track mobile phones so they would know where he was at that instant.

What if Rudy just dialed 112 and hung up? What would Rudy believe the police response would be then? They could trace the owner and send a unit to the cottage. But they would probably trace the location of the phone and send the unit there (where Rudy is) first. This is assuming that they respond at all.

The proper thing to do would have been to call 112 immediately from the cottage. But Rudy didn't do that. Rudy claims that he didn't know where a phone was even though he had to brush past the phone in the entryway to get out the door.


And, you are factually incorrect. Abbey Bank was the second entry in the phone book according to Massei (pg 350):

3. 22.00 pm to make up the number "08,459,724,724" which, under the heading of the two cell corresponds to the user "Abbey".
​

(I wonder if Voice Mail was number 1)

I fail to see the logic in this.


And Amanda, you maintain, made all this activity..I presume out of worry. Yet this worry didn't cause her to call the police.

 

[s_pepys]

Why therefore did the medical expert witnesses in the first trial all offer specific time ranges for ToD based on the stomach/intestinal contents found at autopsy? If you were correct, they would all have simply stated that they couldn't make any kind of judgement for a time range of ToD based on stomach/intestinal contents. Instead, they all quoted within a 2-hour range (even if they contradicted each other).

How would you explain that?

and did they not add that stomach contents are not a reliable method of gaining tod results? They ,in essence, said that it should be taken with a pinch of salt. pardon the pun.

it was also discussed not that long ago about how trauma would affect the factors as well as other influences that you just seem to want to ignore.

lxxx

 

[Jungle Jim]

What DID Amanda do after calling Meredith and getting no response: She called another one of her roommates and then called both of Meredith's phones which at that time were not even ringing. Then she got her boyfriend and went back to the cottage where they found the broken window and Meredith's door locked. Then they called the police. Perhaps this is what Rudy was hoping would happen only 12 hours earlier.

Now what would have happened if Rudy dialed 112? First, he would know that the call would be recorded so if he said anything his voice would be on tape calling from the victim's phone. Rudy probably also knows that the police can track mobile phones so they would know where he was at that instant.

What if Rudy just dialed 112 and hung up? What would Rudy believe the police response would be then? They could trace the owner and send a unit to the cottage. But they would probably trace the location of the phone and send the unit there (where Rudy is) first. This is assuming that they respond at all.

The proper thing to do would have been to call 112 immediately from the cottage. But Rudy didn't do that. Rudy claims that he didn't know where a phone was even though he had to brush past the phone in the entryway to get out the door.


And, you are factually incorrect. Abbey Bank was the second entry in the phone book according to Massei (pg 350):

3. 22.00 pm to make up the number "08,459,724,724" which, under the heading of the two cell corresponds to the user "Abbey".
​

(I wonder if Voice Mail was number 1)

I am having a hard time following your reasoning. It seems you are lurching from one thought to another with little continuity.

Your first paragraph above has nothing to do with your proposed Rudy scenario. Amanda tried to call Meredith after she realized there was some strange things at the cottage.

Your next three paragraphs deal with why Rudy didn't dial 112. The answer is obvious and not disputed by anyone--he didn't call 112 because he did not want to help Meredith.

The last paragraph addresses the Abbey Bank. What am I factually incorrect about? Please reread my post.

 

[LondonJohn]

lj

as have I. last time and the time before........ and there you go again spouting the same cherry picked nonsense as before. it has been shown to you by other posters on this thread and you still keep bleating on about it as if you havnt been shown. Im not trawling this thread again on your behalf.

i notice you say "we" are right. that is quite telling in itself. i would remind you that i am not part of any group, unlike you. Im interested in the case and also in the sociological aspects of this discussion in itself. I dont post or read on any of your "guilter/innocentisti" blogs and im not interested in taking sides. Its all a bit lord of the flies for me im afraid. I take all the points i read and check the ones of interest.

The tod was an interesting topic but the conclusion is that unfortunately the literature does not back you up and any more than the opposing view is backed up.

The only conclusion to be reached is that an accurate/reliable tod is not attainable with the facts as known. It is a judgement call and the judge decided an opposing view to you. as did two of the experts on the stand. That doesnt make them guilty but as a way to advance our knowledge of the case and, eventually, the truth. It is a dead-end.

lxxx

No, I thought it was perfectly obvious that I was using "we" in the previously-defined context of the "I and others" who had searched for medical research on stomach emptying times, and who had subsequently argued on JREF that Meredith must have died within 3 hours (or at an absolute outside maximum, 3.5 hours) of eating. I was not using "we" to refer to any wider community than that. I'm not in any "wider group" so please don't tell me that I am.

(Just out of interest to you, I don't post about the Kercher case anywhere else but JREF - therefore I don't know what you mean by "my" "guilter/innocentisti blogs").

A ToD is eminently able to be established - within ranges - based upon Meredith's stomach contents and the lack of matter in her duodenum. All the literature suggests that this time is (to all statistical intents) somewhere between 30 minutes and 150 minutes after starting the last meal. Since we know that Meredith was definitely alive some 120 minutes after her last meal, this only leaves a 30-minute window for her death between 9pm and 9.30pm. This correlates with the view given by Dr Lalli, the police's own pathologist. It doesn't correlate with the views given by the other expert witnesses, two of whom put ToD at 3-4 hours after eating. I happen to think that these experts were wrong (and remember that at least one of the experts has to be wrong since they contradicted each other), but even if one thinks they were right, then their opinion implies that Meredith died before 10.30pm.

You're perfectly entitled to come to whatever conclusions you want to about the accuracy element of ToD as determined by stomach/intestinal contents. However I think that you (and Massei) are wrong, that two of the trial experts are partly wrong (but even they have Meredith dying before 10.30pm, which tears a rather big hole in the prosecution's case), and that one of the trial experts is correct.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The police can take photographs of the suspects round to local potential witnesses (together with stock photos, to form a photo ID parade), just as they did with Quintavalle. The lack of Sub-judice laws in Italy mean that the police were allowed to release photographs of the suspects to the media, and the media were allowed to freely report on the suspects from the moment of their arrest onwards.

My view of the witness you're referring to is that she had nothing to report - she wasn't a witness. How should she have thought it was relevant that she didn't see Knox in the store on the morning of 2nd November? She remembers (as does the police officer) that the police came in and showed photos of Knox and Sollecito to her and Quintavalle a week or two after the murder, and that neither she nor Quintavalle remembered having seen either Knox or Sollecito on the morning after the murder. But then Quintavalle seemingly had a remarkable jolt to his memory a year down the line. But we'll see what the court makes of Quintavalle in the appeal, won't we?

And this lack demonstrates what on the basis of what? That's not done in Blighty so if they do it a different way somewhere else they're damned bad sports? That's what it boils down to...we do it best and if they don't do it like us they are (insert descriptive)? Is that the deal?

Perhaps we should restart the British Emipire John...just so we can spread education around on how things are done? Or at least...how the English do it. What do you think?

PS: Do the BNP have a candidate standing in your area and when it comes time for the ballet box which way are you going to vote...BNP or Tory?

 

[Fulcanelli]

"We all know" that, do we? "You people"? I wonder why you've become so defensive since last night.......

I'm not defensive John, I'm just reading you. And your transparency hardly makes that a challenge.

 

[s_pepys]

No, I thought it was perfectly obvious that I was using "we" in the previously-defined context of the "I and others" who had searched for medical research on stomach emptying times, and who had subsequently argued on JREF that Meredith must have died within 3 hours (or at an absolute outside maximum, 3.5 hours) of eating. I was not using "we" to refer to any wider community than that. I'm not in any "wider group" so please don't tell me that I am.

(Just out of interest to you, I don't post about the Kercher case anywhere else but JREF - therefore I don't know what you mean by "my" "guilter/innocentisti blogs").

A ToD is eminently able to be established - within ranges - based upon Meredith's stomach contents and the lack of matter in her duodenum. All the literature suggests that this time is (to all statistical intents) somewhere between 30 minutes and 150 minutes after starting the last meal. Since we know that Meredith was definitely alive some 120 minutes after her last meal, this only leaves a 30-minute window for her death between 9pm and 9.30pm. This correlates with the view given by Dr Lalli, the police's own pathologist. It doesn't correlate with the views given by the other expert witnesses, two of whom put ToD at 3-4 hours after eating. I happen to think that these experts were wrong (and remember that at least one of the experts has to be wrong since they contradicted each other), but even if one thinks they were right, then their opinion implies that Meredith died before 10.30pm.

You're perfectly entitled to come to whatever conclusions you want to about the accuracy element of ToD as determined by stomach/intestinal contents. However I think that you (and Massei) are wrong, that two of the trial experts are partly wrong (but even they have Meredith dying before 10.30pm, which tears a rather big hole in the prosecution's case), and that one of the trial experts is correct.

and i think that you are wrong. therin lies the problem. Its fine we can disagree as the experts on the stand disagree. what i hold umbridge with is the blanket statement that ALL medical literature states the times and reliability in favour of your argument because they do not.

I apologise if ive mistakenly put you in a camp here. its just that your reference to the bard and a few other posts about whats being said on other forums makes me think that you must read PMF quite regularly at least.

no offence was intended. i get frustrated with the ingrained beleif style of debate on this thread. There are very few posters who are truly neutral here or at least dont state absolutes with regard to innocence or guilt.

lxxx