Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

I wasn't complaining, much less complaining to you. I was merely pointing out an instance of sloppy and incorrect reporting on the case by someone who's apparently held up by some as a meticulously accurate and reliable reporter.....

The number for the Samaritans is in the yellow pages. Since I'm not one of them, I hand you over to them...tell someone who cares.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Really? A mistake that effects the guilt or innocence of the cherished pair? As soon as you make one and correct it on that subject...let us know. I'll be interested to see you do so...for the first time.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

You haven't read Massei very thoroughly then.

Here are the views of the four:

Lalli (prosecution, autopsy pathologist):

Dr. Lalli stated that death had intervened two to three hours after eating (page 47), while reaffirming that the emptying of the stomach generally occurs between two hours and a maximum of 4 hours after eating (page 62, hearing on April 3, 2009). He added, however, that the digestive process is influenced by many factors like the type of meal, cold, stress, physical conditions and so on, and that to his knowledge there were no reliable studies that could establish "by how much the digestive process can be changed by these factors" (page 86).

Introna (defence):

A first datum consists of what Dr. Lalli verified with respect to the presence of a quantity amounting to 500cc in the stomach; another element is the absence of material in the duodenum. Professor Introna therefore recalled the witness depositions of Meredith’s friends, from which it would have resulted that Meredith began eating her last meal at around 18:30 – 19:00 pm on November 1, 2007 (page 25 of the report already cited several times, and the declarations made in the court hearing of June 20, 2009). Based on these elements, and considering a time of gastric emptying of 2 to 3 hours after the commencement of the ingestion of the last meal, Professor Introna asserts that the violence suffered by Meredith, and which probably caused the cessation of the digestive process, began between 21:00 pm and 21:30 pm.

Bacci (prosecution):

Then he explained that the datum relating to the contents of the stomach had also been considered, and in relation to [the fact] that material in advanced digestive status was found in the stomach, he thought the meal had been eaten three or four hours before death.

And the other prosecution expert, Umani Ronchi, seemed bizarrely to be more concerned with total stomach emptying times than the time at which the stomach actually starts to empty.

You'll notice that all the experts feel able to give one- or two-hour windows for ToD, despite their explicit noting of the caveats. If the caveats made it impossible to give an opinion on ToD, they would have stated this and would have refused to give any specific timings.

Oh, and I don't want to ignore issues sch as extreme trauma or fear. I just don't think you understand their significance. If Meredith's digestive system were indeed stopped by severe trauma or fear, then this trauma/fear had to have happened before 9.30pm or by 10pm at the absolute latest. Therefore Meredith had to have been attacked by 10pm at the absolute latest - even if she was not actually killed until 11.45pm or whatever (unlikely as that might be).

 

[LondonJohn]

Really? A mistake that effects the guilt or innocence of the cherished pair? As soon as you make one and correct it on that subject...let us know. I'll be interested to see you do so...for the first time.

Much as you might like to imagine otherwise, I don't think of Knox or Sollecito as "cherished" (or "little angels" or "little darlings" or any other nomenclature like that). I have no emotional attachment whatsoever to either this case or the defendants, other than feeling compassion for Meredith Kercher and her family and friends, and a certain amount of (conditional) sadness for two people who I think may well have been wrongly convicted of her murder.

And what on earth can you mean by "a mistake that affects the guilt or innocence of the cherished pair"? Nothing I write or say will affect their guilt or non-guilt (to use the correct term in law). An appeal court in Perugia will decide that.

Lastly, are you suggesting that I've made material factual mistakes in my arguments that I have failed to correct? If so, then I'd be more than happy for you to point them out to me with evidence for the errors, and in turn I'll be more than happy to offer a correction and apology.

 

[s_pepys]

lj

but the caveats mentioned by the experts are the very factors that cant be measured or taken into account by definition. Thats why a reliable hypothesis cannot be used to determin tod with digestion.

With regard to, potentially, trauma making a difference that affects the time line. I find that a far more interesting and productive debate in itself. the problem is that it cant be known. Thats why it is unreliable.

I do find it interesting that you are willing to concede that other factors play a part when it strenghens the case for defence. which it does. unfortunately it is not measurable.

the conclusion is the same. No accurate/reliable tod can be found. As i stated last time this came up, this highlights the priority and importance of establishing a tod, early and with the correct methods in any murder case.

lxxx

 

[LondonJohn]

lj

but the caveats mentioned by the experts are the very factors that cant be measured or taken into account by definition. Thats why a reliable hypothesis cannot be used to determin tod with digestion.

With regard to, potentially, trauma making a difference that affects the time line. I find that a far more interesting and productive debate in itself. the problem is that it cant be known. Thats why it is unreliable.

I do find it interesting that you are willing to concede that other factors play a part when it strenghens the case for defence. which it does. unfortunately it is not measurable.

the conclusion is the same. No accurate/reliable tod can be found. As i stated last time this came up, this highlights the priority and importance of establishing a tod, early and with the correct methods in any murder case.

lxxx

No: the point I'm making is this: none of the expert witnesses would have been prepared to state ToD windows such as 2-3 hours or 3-4 hours after eating, if these multiple other factors indeed made it impossible to state such a time window.

A look at the ToD accuracy from residual body temperature might illustrate my point. Since Meredith's residual temperature was taken so long after she died, and since many factors affect the rate of cooling of the body (body weight, body shape, clothing, covering, ambient temperature, blood loss), the window for ToD as determined by Meredith's residual temperature was huge - in the order of 9-10 hours. None of the expert witnesses, when discussing ToD from body temperature readings, stated that Meredith probably died within a (say) 1-hour window, but that the imprecision of gauging death from residual temperature (especially so long after death) means that she might actually have died several hours before or after this window. Instead, they all explicitly say that the body temperature can only give an imprecise 9-10-hour window.

In the same way, had the experts been of the belief that various factors actually made determination of Meredith's ToD from stomach/intestinal contents impossible to determine to anything narrower than (say) a 5-hour window, then they would have said exactly that. In other words, Lalli (for example) would not have said that Meredith died within 2-3 hours of eating: he would have said that Meredith might have died at any time within 1-6 hours of eating. His level of precision in his statement (and that of the others) clearly indicates that the imprecision of the various factors has already been factored into the reasoning behind the 1-hour window.

 

[s_pepys]

im sorry but i just dont read it that way at all. he states the tmes it should take and the window it would be under perfect conditions, then lists the caveats in order to state that it isnt nescesarily a reliable window. It cant be taken as an exact science is what hes saying. at least, thats how i read it.

lxxx

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

It's not about supporting, or not, ...rather the declaration of absolutes as you seem to want to make. Science doesn't support these absolutes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sarah Gino

For over a year you've claimed this and repeated it endlessly (and for over a year we've considered this an attempt to bore us to death). So far, the only evidence for it you've ever been able to show is claims from people that are not part of the case...a stupid letter. Therefore, in return I will bore you, and demand AGAIN your proof of this fact (and clue...deficit claims by individuals not part of the case don't count since they have no right to the data in the first place). So, prove files were withheld and what (that requires evidence rather then argument)...not that it matters, since the appeal court's rejected your crap (or, didn't consider it in the first place...since courts tend to ignore complete pants).

Halides...when Hell freezes over, are you still going to bore us with Hampikian and his bloody letter? If the record gets stuck, switch to CD. That's how evolution works...we evolve.

Fulcanelli,

Sarah Gino said to ABC that she did not have the testing dates on or about 25 September 2009. The dates are part of the electronic data files. Therefore, either the defense did not have the files, or Sarah Gino lied. I pointed this evidence out to you about a year ago, and your answer was to change the subject.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

Sarah Gino said to ABC that she did not have the testing dates on or about 25 September 2009. The dates are part of the electronic data files. Therefore, either the defense did not have the files, or Sarah Gino lied. I pointed this evidence out to you about a year ago, and your answer was to change the subject.

Which is false. And it's false since all defence parties were invited to attend all the tests. If they were invited...how could they not know the dates?

And in addition, your claim of Gino not knowing dates hardly matches being denied FSA files".These are two different complaints.

 

[SomeAlibi]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. You have two expert witnesses in court who say one thing and one who says another. And you contend that a jury would not consider there was twice as much opinion on one side of the debate as the other? How? And you say that ALL the research literature supports the minority point of view in court when the expert witnesses have published academic literature. That's hyperbole and it's unsubstantiated self-evidently, surely?

 

[Chris C]

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?

Probably because the expert that says 2 to 3 hours is the expert that actually performed the autopsy. I believe the judge ruled that the autopsy wont be reexamined, though it would be nice to know the exact ruling concerning the autopsy. If this did happen, the judge sided with Dr. Lalli. The prosecution went through great effort to say that Lalli performed the autopsy wrong. If there is no re-evaluation of the autopsy then the court is ruling he performed it correctly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Which is false. And it's false since all defence parties were invited to attend all the tests. If they were invited...how could they not know the dates?

And in addition, your claim of Gino not knowing dates hardly matches being denied FSA files".These are two different complaints.

Fulcanelli,

And just like a year ago, you are trying to change the subject. The subject is that the electronic data files were never released to the defense, not the separate subject of the prosecution failing to give the defense adequate advance notice of the testing. Moreover, even if the prosecution had given the defense adequate notice, that is no substitute for having the files. Please see a quotation from Dr. Krane upthread in comment 9010 on this very question if you are unsure why. To answer your question, there were multiple testing dates, and it is important to know which samples were tested on which dates.

Ann Wise wrote, “In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing. These dates are important, Gino said, ‘because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated.’” According to Dr. Jason Gilder, ‘The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst).’” It is true that the electronid data files have more than just the dates, but the dates are a portion of what makes them useful.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maresca and discovery

Fulcanelli,

I noticed that you declined to answer my question about Mr. Maresca. Here is a news report:

Francesco Maresca, a lawyer for the Kercher family who had opposed the review, said that "if the court has any remaining doubts, it does well to try to remove them. And now we'll see what these experts will conclude."
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ew/story-e6frfku0-1225973376818#ixzz18b4wmi6V
highlighting added

 

[odeed]

Fulcanelli,

Sarah Gino said to ABC that she did not have the testing dates on or about 25 September 2009. The dates are part of the electronic data files. Therefore, either the defense did not have the files, or Sarah Gino lied. I pointed this evidence out to you about a year ago, and your answer was to change the subject.

I don't think Sarah Gino was referring to electronic files, but the written/paper log files on when tests were carried out, these are different to electronic files.

As for the electronic files, I asked Charlie Wilkes where he got the electropherograms screenshots he posted from, and he said the defense IIRC, there is a difference between Hampikian and Krane did not have the .fsa files before signing the letter, and the defense not having them from the trial, maybe the defense did not let Hampikian and co. see the .fsa files?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not about supporting, or not, ...rather the declaration of absolutes as you seem to want to make. Science doesn't support these absolutes.

Science supports a time range of between 30 minutes and 3 hours for well over 99.5% probability of the stomach starting to empty. Science can also say that it's as good as impossible for Meredith's stomach to still be retaining all of a small/moderate meal over 4 hours after the start of ingestion (unless - possibly - she was overcome by either severe trauma or extreme fear about 3 hours in, and held continuously in that state for well over an hour).

This is not absolutes - it's a range based on an experimentally-determined bell curve (which is slightly asymmetric and therefore not strictly classifiable as a normal curve). The studies which I and others have cited actually aimed to provide a set of reference data for healthy adults, to assist others who wanted to compare the reference data either with very sick patients or patients whose digestive system had been compromised in some way.

Where have I been declaring absolutes? Science can't say that Meredith died at exactly 9.15pm. But it can say that, given that we know that Meredith was still alive at 9pm, she must have died between 9pm and 10pm (and most likely before 9.30pm). Not absolutes. Just good application of experimentally-produced statistical data, coupled with a firm knowledge of the 9pm start of the range.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's my only source is it? I've seen multiple sources all saying the same thing...some of which have been posted here and on PMF. They all say that stomach content should not be used to determine TOD...period.

No you haven't. You've seen multiple sources explaining the limitations of stomach contents analysis, then you have cherry-picked the one sentence or fragment of a sentence from those sources that seems to say what you want to hear - that stomach contents analysis is utterly worthless - and you latch on to that one fragment.

Has it occurred to you that if stomach contents analysis was as worthless as you want to believe, the rest of those articles wouldn't even exist? They would just be one sentence saying "Stomach contents evidence is utterly worthless, period".

It's worth noting that this conviction of yours arose out of the blue when you found out that the stomach contents evidence falsified your beloved Massei narrative. Up until the science told you something you didn't want to hear, you were perfectly happy with it.

Lalli and Ronchi did not base the TOD on stomach contents, they based it on multiple factors. And even there, TOD must not be determined on medical factors alone if possible, but also on other evidence.

What nonsense are you talking here?

The evidence-based time of death has never been based solely on stomach contents. How can you not know this?

It is based on stomach contents plus eyewitness evidence plus the body temperature. Those factors taken together constrain the time of death to 21:05-22:00 or so, with the most likely time of death at the very early end of that range.

I'm not placing statement analyses above peer reviewed scientific literature, I'm placing it on a higher level then 'you'. And let's face it, you're not a fan of the literature when it says things you don't like and so promptly ignore, like not to determine TOD on stomach contents as it's unreliable. Selective acceptance of the literature relegates your claimed expertise to mere opinion.

I really think you need to go back and read the previous posts on this issue. Your misunderstandings are many and serious.

In any case, as has been explained to you and your disciples many, many times now, the evidence-based time of death does not hinge on anyone's personal authority. It relies solely on the objective facts about Meredith's last meal and the way the human digestive system works, which can be verified by anyone with a basic level of scientific literacy who has access to the relevant literature.

Don't feel too bad. Lots of amateurs come to the JREF forums absolutely convinced that they are an authority on some topic or other only to be promptly shown up with a very minimal amount of work by more scientifically literate forumgoers. This happens all the time.

 

[LondonJohn]

No you haven't. You've seen multiple sources explaining the limitations of stomach contents analysis, then you have cherry-picked the one sentence or fragment of a sentence from those sources that seems to say what you want to hear - that stomach contents analysis is utterly worthless - and you latch on to that one fragment.

Has it occurred to you that if stomach contents analysis was as worthless as you want to believe, the rest of those articles wouldn't even exist? They would just be one sentence saying "Stomach contents evidence is utterly worthless, period".

It's worth noting that this conviction of yours arose out of the blue when you found out that the stomach contents evidence falsified your beloved Massei narrative. Up until the science told you something you didn't want to hear, you were perfectly happy with it.



What nonsense are you talking here?

The evidence-based time of death has never been based solely on stomach contents. How can you not know this?

It is based on stomach contents plus eyewitness evidence plus the body temperature. Those factors taken together constrain the time of death to 21:05-22:00 or so, with the most likely time of death at the very early end of that range.



I really think you need to go back and read the previous posts on this issue. Your misunderstandings are many and serious.

In any case, as has been explained to you and your disciples many, many times now, the evidence-based time of death does not hinge on anyone's personal authority. It relies solely on the objective facts about Meredith's last meal and the way the human digestive system works, which can be verified by anyone with a basic level of scientific literacy who has access to the relevant literature.

Don't feel too bad. Lots of amateurs come to the JREF forums absolutely convinced that they are an authority on some topic or other only to be promptly shown up with a very minimal amount of work by more scientifically literate forumgoers. This happens all the time.

It's a shame to see such vigorous and willful denial of scientific/medical knowledge from people who don't like what it tells them. The expert witnesses in the trial already proved that it's eminently possible to give a fairly narrow (1-hour) ToD range from the state of Meredith's stomach and duodenum at autopsy. The only thing is that they contradicted each other by saying 2-3 hours from eating vs 3-4 hours after eating. The court then seemingly screwed up by getting mixed up over the time of Meredith's last meal - the start point of the meal is the relevant time, and that was around 6.30pm. Even if one chooses the 4-hour maximum given by two of the experts, this implies that Meredith died before 10.30pm. And that's a big problem for the prosecution.

I think that even without any new expert witnesses being admitted in this area, some people might be extremely surprised by the appeal court's ruling on ToD when it's finally made. I have a hunch, though, that following the discrediting of the DNA analysis, Pratillo Hellmann might allow further expert testimony on ToD from stomach/duodenum contents analysis.

Roll on the next couple of months...

 

[HumanityBlues]

He never describes disco buses anyway, only young people getting on buses to go to discos.

Nominated.

 

[odeed]

Science supports a time range of between 30 minutes and 3 hours for well over 99.5% probability of the stomach starting to empty. Science can also say that it's as good as impossible for Meredith's stomach to still be retaining all of a small/moderate meal over 4 hours after the start of ingestion (unless - possibly - she was overcome by either severe trauma or extreme fear about 3 hours in, and held continuously in that state for well over an hour).

This is not absolutes - it's a range based on an experimentally-determined bell curve (which is slightly asymmetric and therefore not strictly classifiable as a normal curve). The studies which I and others have cited actually aimed to provide a set of reference data for healthy adults, to assist others who wanted to compare the reference data either with very sick patients or patients whose digestive system had been compromised in some way.

Where have I been declaring absolutes? Science can't say that Meredith died at exactly 9.15pm. But it can say that, given that we know that Meredith was still alive at 9pm, she must have died between 9pm and 10pm (and most likely before 9.30pm). Not absolutes. Just good application of experimentally-produced statistical data, coupled with a firm knowledge of the 9pm start of the range.

A box plot would be a better representation of the data.