Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

the co-signers of the letter

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?

odeed,

I think that machine logs would have some of the same information (dates), but there is also going to be some kinds of information that is unique to one or the other. I contacted several of the nine scientists who are either authors or co-signers of the letter, most extensively Drs. Krane and Gilder. Dr. Gilder told me that they had made the request for the files through the defense to the prosecution on more than one occasion and were refused by the prosecution each time. It is difficult to see why the defense would refuse them. Dr. Johnson, in particular, made statements to the press defending Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito.

 

[bobc]

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.

Does this sort of snarkiness actually work in winning arguments around here?

Apart from people telling me how obvious it is to the "internet experts", I can't really see any justification for picking the low end of the range apart from it suits the argument. The fact that my own research* suggests a range of 2-4 hours suggests people are trying to be overprecise about something that is inherently fuzzy.

Even if the 2-3 hour range is preferred, it does not rule out Knox and Sollecito involvement, so I don't think it introduces any reasonable doubt, so I am baffled why this issue is considered so important.

* e.g.

Even the emotions can have an impact on the secretions and appetite and in the presence of intense pain, fear, depression etc, gastric juices may almost suppressed.

FACT - The stomach empties at the slow rate of about 3/100 ounce for each peristaltic wave. Making it three waves per minute, it can take up to five hours for two pounds of food to leave the stomach.

The emptying time of the stomach also varies with the type of food present. Water and liquids leave the stomach most rapidly. Fats are getting emptied very long as they are heavy to digest. Carbohydrates empty more quickly than proteins; proteins, in turn, leave the stomach more quickly than fats.

 

[Chris C]

Even if the 2-3 hour range is preferred, it does not rule out Knox and Sollecito involvement, so I don't think it introduces any reasonable doubt, so I am baffled why this issue is considered so important.

* e.g.

Actually a 2 to 3 hour range rules them out completely. They have an impeachable alibi for that time period.

 

[odeed]

odeed,

I think that machine logs would have some of the same information (dates), but there is also going to be some kinds of information that is unique to one or the other. I contacted several of the nine scientists who are either authors or co-signers of the letter, most extensively Drs. Krane and Gilder. Dr. Gilder told me that they had made the request for the files through the defense to the prosecution on more than one occasion and were refused by the prosecution each time. It is difficult to see why the defense would refuse them. Dr. Johnson, in particular, made statements to the press defending Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito.

IIRC, the letter was signed in November 2009, a few weeks before the verdict, why leave it so late?

Also, why request from the prosecution, the usual* channel is to put the request to the court judge for "unused materials" (that's what the files where in a legal context), and the judge to make a ruling on if they should be handed over, as far as I remember there was a court ruling in 2008 by an earlier judge for the data, and there was a request during the trial for log files which Gino referred to, did the defense not ask for the electronic files in the appeal process?

*may be different in Italian courts.

 

[bobc]

Actually a 2 to 3 hour range rules them out completely. They have an impeachable alibi for that time period.

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

One thing that amazes me about this case is how incompetent the defence have been, how could they have missed something so slam dunk?

 

[platonov]

Actually a 2 to 3 hour range rules them out completely. They have an impeachable alibi for that time period.

Unless impeachable has been redefined - you are now a guilter

These big words like (stats) are trickier than they look.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why TOD is important

Does this sort of snarkiness actually work in winning arguments around here?

Apart from people telling me how obvious it is to the "internet experts", I can't really see any justification for picking the low end of the range apart from it suits the argument. The fact that my own research* suggests a range of 2-4 hours suggests people are trying to be overprecise about something that is inherently fuzzy.

Even if the 2-3 hour range is preferred, it does not rule out Knox and Sollecito involvement, so I don't think it introduces any reasonable doubt, so I am baffled why this issue is considered so important.

* e.g.

BobC,

If Meredith ate at 6:30 and died after 11:30 (as is the prosecution's timeline), then that is over 5 hours, in which the food did not begin to pass into the duodenum. That is not credible, and I offered what I consider one of the less rigorous arguments to that effect (but one which is useful in its own right). I have previously given a link to advice from an anesthesiology practice, which said for patients to refrain from eating for six hours before surgery. Such advice would not be good, if food were still sitting in the stomach at the beginning of an operation.

The earlier Meredith's TOD was, the less time there would have been for Raffaele and Amanda allegedly to get so high on something that they murder Amanda's flatmate. And finally, one gets to the point at which Amanda and Raffaele have an unimpeachable alibi, and that time might move later with additional computer evidence.

 

[billyryan]

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.

At the time that Stefanoni carried out the forensic tests she probally genuinly believed that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty,and it was her job to seal the deal.Rudy Guede had not really contested any of the dna results he has just tried to explain them away,Stefanoni probally thought it would be the same with Amanda and Raffaele.what she did not find out until it was too late was that all the witnesess that the prosecution had were just "liars for hire"
and the only evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was her forensic work,and maybe she had no reason to believe that her work would ever be subjected to independent analysis by forensic experts appointed by the court


She has already lied in court about the sise of the dna sample on the braclip,she also lied about not testing the luminol footprints for blood,I expect and hope that not turning over the fsa files to the court appointed scientists is not an optian,

The best case scenario for the defence is proof that it is not Raffaele dna on the braclip (very likely)

The test on the knife blade to be considdered to have breached all international standers for LCN testing and should not be entered as evidence (again very likely)

In such a scenario Stefanoni's career could survive,but if any intensional wrong doing was to be uncovered in her determination one way or the other to find Meridiths dna on the knife blade(possible)then Stefanoni career goes down the tubes and she might take others with her

The presence of her boss at the prosecuters table during the trial seems to me to be very strange

 

[LondonJohn]

Does this sort of snarkiness actually work in winning arguments around here?

Apart from people telling me how obvious it is to the "internet experts", I can't really see any justification for picking the low end of the range apart from it suits the argument. The fact that my own research* suggests a range of 2-4 hours suggests people are trying to be overprecise about something that is inherently fuzzy.

Even if the 2-3 hour range is preferred, it does not rule out Knox and Sollecito involvement, so I don't think it introduces any reasonable doubt, so I am baffled why this issue is considered so important.

* e.g.

In a not-uncommon error in your quote, the majority of it deals with the rate of emptying of the stomach. But this is not relevant in this case, since Meredith's stomach had not even started to empty yet. It would only be relevant if there was also chyme matter in her duodenum and jejenum (the first two parts of the small intestine), indicating partial emptying of the stomach, but there was none found there.

The only statistic which matters is t(lag) - lag time - the time between the ingestion of food and the start of its passage out of the stomach into the duodenum and beyond.

Your discovered t(lag) time of 2-4 hours is reasonable, but the upper limit is still unsupported by research data. Do you have a link to the paper where you found this 2-4 hour t(lag) mentioned?

And if the 2-3 hour t(lag) is taken (or, frankly, even if a 2-4 hour t(lag)) is taken), it puts the ToD at between 9pm and 9.30pm (or 9.00pm-10.30pm for the 2-4 hour t(lag)). A ToD between 9pm and 9.30pm pretty much blows the prosecution case apart, and even a ToD before 10.30 holes the prosecution case below the waterline. Either timing would pretty much nullify the earwitnesses and Curatolo. A pre-10.30 ToD actually implies a pre-10.15 ToD, since there was a broken down car outside the house between 10.30pm and around 11.35-11.40pm, whose occupants testified to no noise, light, activity or coming/going to the cottage while they were there. And given that even the prosecution concede that if this was a 3-way murder, there must have been a certain amount of pre-amble, this means that Knox and Sollecito would have had to arrive at the cottage before around 10pm at the latest. Of course, a pre-9.30pm ToD implies Knox and Sollecito arriving at the cottage by around 9.10-9.15pm. And Knox and Sollecito have increasing secure computer and eyewitness alibis from 9.40pm backwards, so moving the ToD back before 10.30pm starts to put increasingly immense strain on the whole prosecution case. If it's put back to even pre-10pm, then the case against Knox and Sollecito starts to fall apart.

 

[platonov]

Dial-up is a major cause of Miscarriages of Justice

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

One thing that amazes me about this case is how incompetent the defence have been, how could they have missed something so slam dunk?

Italy doesn't have broadband yet.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

off-guard

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

One thing that amazes me about this case is how incompetent the defence have been, how could they have missed something so slam dunk?

bobc,

I believe that the prosecutor moved the TOD back roughly an hour in his closing remarks. I speculate that the defense was caught off-guard. However, I am also baffled as to why the judge allowed him to do this. He had 11 extra months to prepare his case (two years in all), the time between their arrest and the time when they were actually charged.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Does this sort of snarkiness actually work in winning arguments around here?

Apart from people telling me how obvious it is to the "internet experts", I can't really see any justification for picking the low end of the range apart from it suits the argument. The fact that my own research* suggests a range of 2-4 hours suggests people are trying to be overprecise about something that is inherently fuzzy.

It's always better to go to the actual literature rather than someone's attempt to boil the literature down to a convenient number like "2-4 hours".

What you'll see if you do that is that, in this case, it is overwhelmingly likely that, given that we know that Meredith was alive until 21:05 or so, that Meredith died very shortly after that time.

There is scope for reasonable difference of opinion about whether a t(lag) of 240 minutes under normal circumstances is really incredibly unlikely but not actually impossible, or just flat out impossible. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's 99.9% certain Meredith died before 22:00 or 100% certain Meredith died before 22:00. However we're arguing about a very small space under the very tail of the distribution.

What reasonable people familiar with the literature do have to agree on is that it's 95% likely Meredith died before 21:30 as a minimum, and 100% impossible that she died at 23:30 barring outright falsification of the evidence by Dr Lalli.

Even if the 2-3 hour range is preferred, it does not rule out Knox and Sollecito involvement, so I don't think it introduces any reasonable doubt, so I am baffled why this issue is considered so important.

That alone does not rule out Knox and Sollecito's involvement, true. However this is scarcely the only piece of relevant evidence.

There is uncontested evidence of human computer activity on Raffaele's computer at 21:10, and the defence claimed some time ago that it can show evidence of human computer activity at 21:26. More recently they have published error logs that purport to show human computer activity covering the entire possible range of times of death for Meredith even if you give Massei a free kick and allow him his utterly absurd 23:30 time of death.

Put those two together and you've demonstrated that there is no possible way that Amanda and Raffaele could have murdered Meredith because they were not physically present when Meredith died.

That's not the end of the prosecution's problems though. Their "superwitnesses" Nara and Curatolo put Amanda and Raffaele outdoors from 21:30 until 23:00 and the time of death at 23:30. Whoops! There's no way their statements can possibly be reconciled with Amanda and Raffaele leaving Raffaele's house at 21:27 and then rushing to Amanda's house to murder Meredith.

Not to mention that the only fairy story the prosecution could come up with to explain why and how two ordinary students with no history of violence ganged up to sexually molest and murder a housemate was that it occurred after a drug-fuelled sex party got out of hand. Where's the time for a drug-fuelled sex party in any modified narrative that uses the actual time of death?

I've made mocking reference to half-baked guilter theories that have Amanda and Raffaele clicking on a Naruto file at 21:26, running out the door with kitchen knife in hand leaving it to play behind them, bursting through the door of Amanda's house at 21:30, giving Rudy a high five and stabbing Meredith immediately. It's an absurd scenario but it's the only way to cram Amanda and Raffaele in to the crime if you take into account some of the computer evidence and the real time of death.

Include all the computer evidence and it's flat-out impossible.

That's not the end of the problem for the guilter community though. I mean, the fact that it proves that the couple they love to hate had nothing to do with Meredith's murder is enough of a blow, but it's not the whole problem.

This also proves that Mignini and Massei were fools and the prosecution was wrong-headed and malevolent from the beginning. The evidence proving the prosecution narrative to be wrong was there all along, right there in the Massei report. The evidence proving that Nara was a fantasist and Curatolo a nutter or a stooge was there all along, right there in the Massei report.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

One thing that amazes me about this case is how incompetent the defence have been, how could they have missed something so slam dunk?

I've said for a long time that there were probably serious failings in the defence of both Knox and Sollecito in the first trial. Of course, the lazy thing to say is that the "two lovebirds" had "the best defence money could buy". In contrast, I think they employed inappropriate lead attorneys (one of whom had a full-time political career and had never defended a murder suspect, and the other of whom had never defended in any criminal case whatsoever!). I think they missed several important areas, and weren't plugged into the correct networks for relevant expert witnesses.

The issue of disco buses is just one example of many. Any one of the defence attorneys could have got affidavits from the big out-of-town disco owners back in 2008 or 2009 to show that these discos were not open on November 1st 2007 (and that there were therefore no disco buses), and they could have used this to discredit Curatolo in the first trial. Many of the DNA and medical/scientific elements also (in my view) suffered from lack of a sufficient defence.

I believe that additional firepower has been drafted in at the appeal stage, to provide support and co-ordination of defence strategy, and to try to ensure that these sorts of mistakes aren't repeated. These additional legal figures aren't eligible to speak in court, but they are (I presume) very busy behind the scenes.

 

[RoseMontague]

You're incorrect. The court has ruled that it won't reopen ToD.

Wow, can I say just Wow. I missed this one. So this wasn't an issue they decided just not to address at this time. It makes all this discussion on TOD we are having now seem not important. What reasons did the court give that they won't reopen TOD?

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I give you credit for being an intelligent person, so it is my assumption that you are very aware that this is the type of post that usually has a result of you not being around for awhile. My only conclusion is that you do this intentionally. My only question is why?

 

[LondonJohn]

bobc,

I believe that the prosecutor moved the TOD back roughly an hour in his closing remarks. I speculate that the defense was caught off-guard. However, I am also baffled as to why the judge allowed him to do this. He had 11 extra months to prepare his case (two years in all), the time between their arrest and the time when they were actually charged.

He did do this, but the defence should have been ready for it nonetheless. However, as you say, it's mysterious (to say the least) as to why the first court allowed the prosecutor to change such a material part of the case in closing argument - there's no way whatsoever (in my view) that such a move would have been allowed in a US or UK court.

Mind you, no UK or US court would have allowed a public prosecutor such as Mignini to say the following in his closing arguments:

"Probably she would have insulted Meredith. And she probably said, 'You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you, and now we will make you have sex!'"

So I guess anything's possible...........

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow, can I say just Wow. I missed this one. So this wasn't an issue they decided just not to address at this time. It makes all this discussion on TOD we are having now seem not important. What reasons did the court give that they won't reopen TOD?

Yes, I'd also be very interested to hear the court's statement that it "won't be reopening ToD", and its reasons why.......

 

[s_pepys]

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.[/QUOTE]


sorry but this post is wrong on so many different levels.

 

[bobc]

And if the 2-3 hour t(lag) is taken (or, frankly, even if a 2-4 hour t(lag)) is taken), it puts the ToD at between 9pm and 9.30pm (or 9.00pm-10.30pm for the 2-4 hour t(lag)). A ToD between 9pm and 9.30pm pretty much blows the prosecution case apart, and even a ToD before 10.30 holes the prosecution case below the waterline. Either timing would pretty much nullify the earwitnesses and Curatolo. A pre-10.30 ToD actually implies a pre-10.15 ToD, since there was a broken down car outside the house between 10.30pm and around 11.35-11.40pm, whose occupants testified to no noise, light, activity or coming/going to the cottage while they were there.

You're starting to convince me, but I thought Curatolo and Capezzali were considered unreliable - Curatolo, "an alcoholic with mental health problems (probably)", and Capezzali, "old, a bit deaf (probably)". Or are they now considered reliable if they support the defence?

I am sure someone was telling me how bad it is to flip-flop over the same piece of data, in order to suit an argument...

Anyway, I think you have cracked the case, it just needs the defence to call on you or Kevin Lowe, as expert witnesses, and the whole thing can be quickly cleared up. Did you get an invite yet?

 

[LondonJohn]

You're starting to convince me, but I thought Curatolo and Capezzali were considered unreliable - Curatolo, "an alcoholic with mental health problems (probably)", and Capezzali, "old, a bit deaf (probably)". Or are they now considered reliable if they support the defence?

I am sure someone was telling me how bad it is to flip-flop over the same piece of data, in order to suit an argument...

Anyway, I think you have cracked the case, it just needs the defence to call on you or Kevin Lowe, as expert witnesses, and the whole thing can be quickly cleared up. Did you get an invite yet?

I'm not sure that you're grasping it. They don't support the defence. But if the revised ToD is accepted, they now don't support the prosecution either. They're worthless to everyone, in other words. And since they were formerly part of the prosecution's case, this can only be damaging to the prosecution.

And when you add in the possible discrediting of Quintavalle, and the outcome of the review of the DNA evidence on the bra clasp and knife, you potentially get large chunks of the prosecution case being pulled apart.

I appreciate your suggestion that Kevin or I might be called up, but I unfortunately would not be considered an expert witness. Just as if a court needed to know how long (to the nearest second) it took light to travel from the Sun to the Earth, they would call an astronomer or astrophysicist to tell them - even though I could provide the same correct answer of an average of just less than 8min 19sec (it's an average because the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies throughout the year). And the funny thing is, I'm neither an astronomer nor an astrophysicist, yet I can be practically certain that I'm correct on this matter. Isn't that strange?