The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[platonov]

Mathematician at an Italian table.

<snip>

If all we knew was that Meredith's last meal started at around 6.30pm:

a) Prob she died before 9pm = 98%
b) Prob she died between 9pm and 9.20pm = 1.9%
c) Prob she died between 9.20pm and 10pm = 0.09%
d) Prob she died later than 10pm = 0.01%


Now, if we add in the condition that she definitely didn't die before 9pm:

a) Prob she died before 9pm = 0%
b) Prob she died between 9pm and 9.20pm = 95% c) Prob she died between 9.20pm and 10pm = 4.5%d) Prob she died later than 10pm = 0.5%

Of course, the caveat to all of this is that the bell curve isn't exceptionally precisely defined at such a far end of the curve. This of course is why I originally introduced a +/- 25% error to those numbers. However, even when such a large error factor is applied, it's patently clear that the overwhelming likelihood is that Meredith died well before 10pm, and that it's virtually impossible that she died later than 11pm (or at the very least was violently attacked any later than 11pm).

More nonsense - laugh duly delivered.

What I asked you to show was ................

Of course if you wish to explain, using your 'stats'.......

Given that the subject is alive at 9.00 and according to your post I linked to above there was a 95% probability of a ToD between 9.00 & 9.20 - How this rises to only 96% by 10.00 ?

....... Then be my guest - I'm game for a laugh

But you now suddenly post that probability of ToD before 10pm = 99.5 %. 95 +4.5 = 99.5

What hapened to probability of ToD before 10pm = 96 % ???..........
............which you were endeavouring to show.

Given that we know Meredith started her last meal at around 6.30pm, and GIVEN THAT WE KNOW SHE DID NOT DIE BEFORE 9.00PM, what are the relative probabilities now? They are as follows:

a) Prob that she died between 6.30pm and 9.00pm: 0%
b) Prob that she died between 9.00pm and 10.00pm: 96% (approx)c) Prob that she died between 10.00pm and 11.00pm: 3.4% (approx)
d) Prob that she died later than 11.00pm: 0.6% (approx)[/B]

Are you doing these calculations on the back of napkin in an Italian resturant ?? a la D Adams.

Man, this 'science' stats addition&subtraction recognizing numbers is not as exact as you earlier claimed !

We shall ignore the 'probability of 98%' using your 'science' that given a 5.30 meal start time MK was dead by 8pm - for the moment

 

[platonov]

DP

 

[platonov]

Of course what's 3.5% in a field where a correction factor of 25% can be applied willy nilly.

Speaking of which...........

<snip>

Of course, the caveat to all of this is that the bell curve isn't exceptionally precisely defined at such a far end of the curve. This of course is why I originally introduced a +/- 25% error to those numbers.

<snip>

Thats not how I remember it

 

[LondonJohn]

More nonsense - laugh duly delivered.

What I asked you to show was ................




But you now suddenly post that probability of ToD before 10pm = 99.5 %. 95 +4.5 = 99.5

What hapened to probability of ToD before 10pm = 96 % ???..........
............which you were endeavouring to show.




Are you doing these calculations on the back of napkin in an Italian resturant ?? a la D Adams.

Man, this 'science' stats addition&subtraction recognizing numbers is not as exact as you earlier claimed !

We shall ignore the 'probability of 98%' using your 'science' that given a 5.30 meal start time MK was dead by 8pm - for the moment

I fear that your reading comprehension skills might not be quite the full shilling. If you re-read the post of mine at which your response above is aimed, I explained quite clearly that the percentage discrepancies were due to me not correlating precisely the percentages - essentially the ones that I quoted in my post yesterday were off the top of my head (and were explicitly listed as "approx"), since the intention of the post was to illustrate the principle of conditional probability analysis.

Re-reading my post again will also show you that - for your benefit - I re-presented my argument, this time using the identical percentages that I had originally calculated some time ago. Your "argument" as presented above is therefore either flippant or borne of ignorance - but I think I can probably guess which one it is.....

Are you actually going to attempt to engage in any constructive discussion, or is your sole purpose here to agitate and disrupt without making any actual contributions? If so, then I guess I ought to feel a bit sorry for you. Is it because you feel personally wounded by the case for guilt unravelling at the seams?

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course what's 3.5% in a field where a correction factor of 25% can be applied willy nilly.

Speaking of which...........




Thats not how I remember it

Really?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes - I think there's testimony that Meredith sprinted home completely naked, stopping only to ensure that her skin temperature dropped to the ambient air temperature first.

Meredith strolled home with her friend Sophie Purton. They left the friends' house at around 8.40-8.45pm. Which was already around two and a quarter hours after the start of the pizza meal. And during those two and a quarter hours, Meredith had been predominantly sitting (or maybe even lying down) watching a DVD with her friends and chatting.

Nobody's claiming that Meredith's circumstances (meal size and constituents, post-prandial activity) exactly mirror experimental conditions. But they are not significantly different in any regard, and this is why it's reasonable to apply the experimental findings with Meredith's situation. But even if we apply an extremely generous 25% correcting factor, it still becomes extremely unlikely that Meredith died any later than 10pm, and virtually impossible that she died any later than 10.30pm

.


How do YOU remember it then......?

 

[platonov]

Nonsense

By the way, what you've done here is compare apples and pears. The original "ToD before 9pm = 98%" is based on the lack of the additional conditional information that Meredith in fact did NOT die before 9pm. This new knowledge changes this probability to "ToD before 9pm = 0%".

It's therefore entirely compatible with the conditional probability (given we know Meredith did not die before 9pm) that Meredith died between 9pm and 10pm of 96%. Sorry if you don't understand this though. I can explain it again if it would help...

PS what happened to the superfluous "signature" full stop....?

Nonsense, its all turnips.

Give it up sir - you should have stuck with the 25% correction. It was dumb but funny.

In any case in truther Cartwheel world is 'definitely dead by 9.20' now off the table ???
Or 'dead at 9.05' as KL's 'science' had it.

& Still ignoring the possible 7pm meal start time I see - funny science this is, ignore data that doesn't point to Lone Wolves.

Of course if you wish to explain, using your 'stats'.......

Given that the subject is alive at 9.00 and according to your post I linked to above there was a 95% probability of a ToD between 9.00 & 9.20 - How this rises to only 96% by 10.00 ?

....... Then be my guest - I'm game for a laugh

Here are both posts in their entirety.

Now you offered..

Sorry if you don't understand this though. I can explain it again if it would help...

Feel free to do so...

 

[Matthew Best]

I asked what time you think Kercher died a while ago.

So far, crickets....

 

[katy_did]

I asked what time you think Kercher died a while ago.

So far, crickets....

But that would mean Plat would have to commit to an opinion, and last time he did that he fell into the retrocausality trap when he suggested super-psychic Amanda made up the 'bathmat shuffle' to explain the luminol footprints which were in fact discovered the day afterwards.

So I can understand his reluctance.

 

[platonov]

chirpy chirpy cheep cheep

More crickets

Have you guys no faith in LJs ability to 'magic' 96% into 99.5%.

A simple 'add 3.5%' 'correction factor' should do the trick.
(or an angry wall of text where its all my fault)

 

[RoseMontague]

But that would mean Plat would have to commit to an opinion, and last time he did that he fell into the retrocausality trap when he suggested super-psychic Amanda made up the 'bathmat shuffle' to explain the luminol footprints which were in fact discovered the day afterwards.

So I can understand his reluctance.

I actually like that theory. This is a really tough crowd.

 

[platonov]

Really?
.


How do YOU remember it then......?

As per MY post from the link I provided (which also included YOUR post)

My habit of providing links is rather awkward for those who would rewrite history isn't it

Hold on what kind of 'science' is this [ just spotted it now ]

In your earlier post you were claiming a 99.9 % probability of ToD before 9.20.

Now a mere hour after the potential problems with this were pointed out, you suddenly apply a 25% correction to your very precise calculations [which were based on the 'literature'] and push the ToD range back to 10 or 10.30.

Its rather like claiming with a probability of 99.9% that a particular lone wolf is precisely 1.793 m tall (and not 1 mm taller), give or take 0.450 m

ETA The fact that those 10.30 & 10.00 times coincide with what was posted regarding the defence claims in the trial and appeal docs is just a coincidence I take it ?

the potential problems with this were pointed out by platonov as it happens

 

[platonov]

Mendacity or Confusion

I actually like that theory. This is a really tough crowd.

More crickets.

LJ is a big boy, he can manage.

BTW Thats not my theory - note the lack of a link.
Thats what seperates us and infuriates some - I can provide links

Lets see if katy did can - or was he being dishonest or confused in his haste to run interference for LJ.

 

[katy_did]

BTW Thats not my theory - note the lack of a link.
Thats what seperates us and infuriates some - I can provide links
Lets see if Katy Did can - or was he being dshomnest or conused in his haste to run
interference for LJ.

LOL.

Dshomnest or conused? I am certainly confuddled.

It was your theory, a long time ago. Or at least, as near as you've gotten to committing to a theory before you drew back too late, realizing you'd plummeted into the retrocausality swamp. Hence, I assume, your reluctance to commit to any firm theories now (what time is it you think Meredith died, again?).

 

[RoseMontague]

More crickets.

LJ is a big boy, he can manage.

BTW Thats not my theory - note the lack of a link.
Thats what seperates us and infuriates some - I can provide links

Lets see if katy did can - or was he being dishonest or confused in his haste to run interference for LJ.

Katy is a big girl, she can manage.

 

[platonov]

Mendacity or Confusion

LOL.

Dshomnest or conused? I am certainly confuddled.

It was your theory, a long time ago. Or at least, as near as you've gotten to committing to a theory before you drew back too late, realizing you'd plummeted into the retrocausality swamp. Hence, I assume, your reluctance to commit to any firm theories now (what time is it you think Meredith died, again?).

BTW Thats not my theory - note the lack of a link.
Thats what seperates us and infuriates some - I can provide links

Lets see if katy did can - or was he being dishonest or confused in his haste to run interference for LJ.

It appears not !

The jury is still out but mendacity looks more likely - of course a retraction on katy did's part is still possible.

 

[katy_did]

It appears not !

You did suggest it, though it was in that roundabout non-committal way so characteristic of your posts. I'm not even conusing you and Pilot Padron in this instance, even though I frequently do conuse the pair of you.

As Massei would say, if you didn't say it and I didn't read it, I can think of no reason why I would write about it. That I'm too lazy to dig out the link is of no significance one way or another.

What time do you think Meredith died, btw?

Katy is a big girl, she can manage.

Thank you, Rose!

 

[platonov]

You did suggest it, though it was in that roundabout non-committal way so characteristic of your posts. I'm not even conusing you and Pilot Padron in this instance, even though I frequently do conuse the pair of you.

As Massei would say, if you didn't say it and I didn't read it, I can think of no reason why I would write about it. That I'm too lazy to dig out the link is of no significance one way or another.

What time do you think Meredith died, btw?



Thank you, Rose!

Mendacity it is then.

 

[platonov]

Katy is a big girl, she can manage.

If you say so - but I just caught him her out in a lie.

Remember that old New Yorker ? cartoon

 

[katy_did]

Mendacity it is then.

LOL. You know you said it, dear Platonov. It's just that you escaped from the jaws of the retrocausality shark in the nick of time.

Anyway, I've already pointed out that there's no reason I would say you said what you said unless you did in fact say it. The onus is now on you to prove you didn't, in fact, say it, as Massei would say.

Crickets still chirping on the time of death issue, then?

 

[RoseMontague]

If you say so - but I just caught him her out in a lie.

Remember that old New Yorker ? cartoon

I remember the exchange and I actually agreed with what you were hinting at.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6582909&postcount=16676

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6584011&postcount=16717