Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

No, I am not the one missing the point - I don't care if you believe Rudy did this all by himself, or had help with Amanda and Raf or anybody else, you tell me how long the attack happened once it started - you do not know because if you did, your guilty too.

Duh??? What's this supposed to mean?

The evidence is that Rudy Guede attacked and killed Meredith, all on his own, shortly after she arrived home - i.e. between 9pm and 9:30pm. He then cleaned himself up, stole her phones and money, and left the flat before 10:13pm when her phone connected with a mobile tower that was unlikely to be reached from the cottage.

I don't need to be more precise than this about the duration of the attack. You're the one who is bringing in a completely unsupported narrative of a 2-hour torture session so that you can cling to the prosecution claim of an 11:45 ToD, when they believe they can claim that AK and RS could have been present. None of that makes sense, because they could not possibly have been present at the time the attack started.

In any case, if you are making an accusation of murder against someone - as you are - you need something considerably more than "might have", "it's possible", "prove it didn't happen!" etc. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sherlock Holmes, I'm happy to see you're agreeing with the "stomach contents" argument. You made an insightful observation - indeed ToD is not that important as the fact that the attack on Meredith started around 9.

What a sorry excuse for an "argument" the whole "tortured for two hours" idea is.

This is not only because of

a) the sheer implausibility of this per se,

b) the total lack of physical evidence on Meredith's body that she was held for two hours (no binding marks, no extensive bruising etc etc), and

c) the massive unlikelihood of Knox and Sollecito being present any time before 9.30pm (meaning that Guede started things off on his own, and Knox/Sollecito arrived and decided to join in!).

It's also because some people still seem to have a limited (at best) knowledge of how the human digestive system works. Digestion can slow if a person is subjected to extreme trauma or terror. It doesn't stop. It only stops - briefly - at the very maximum period of trauma or terror, or - completely and terminally - when the person is near to death. There is simply no way that a person can be held at such a level of terror or trauma that their digestive system stops working for two hours.

But, apart from all that, the "two hour torture" theory is a total corker!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Really, I can not believe I'm talking to grown ups here - OK, again, I do not care who you think killed Meredith, she had three wounds in her throat, tell me how long, in minutes or hours are between those 3 wounds, did they happen all within a minute or two, or is it possible it was drawn out over a much longer time period, Oh, and don't forget to tell me how you know this to be true, this should be interesting.....

 

[Matthew Best]

Really, I can not believe I'm talking to grown ups here

Yes, it seems to have taken you by surprise.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes, I'm happy to see you're agreeing with the "stomach contents" argument. You made an insightful observation - indeed ToD is not that important as the fact that the attack on Meredith started around 9.

I most certainly agree with this statement, 9:00 to 9:30 is what I have stated before - but that does not mean she died at that time.

 

[lionking]

In any case, if you are making an accusation of murder against someone - as you are - you need something considerably more than "might have", "it's possible", "prove it didn't happen!" etc. The burden of proof is on you.

the burden of proof is on an anonymous Internet poster and not those involved in the case? Hilarious.

 

[LondonJohn]

I most certainly agree with this statement, 9:00 to 9:30 is what I have stated before - but that does not mean she died at that time.

Yes. It does.

It seems you still don't understand the physiology of the human digestive system. There are two mechanisms that inhibit or stop the function of the digestive system: the first is a simple chemical mechanism, and the second is a shut-down of brain/nervous activity just prior to death.

So, the chemical one first: blood flow to the digestive system is regulated by the level of epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) in the bloodstream. If a human is attacked, or is traumatised in some way, the brain commands a release of these hormones into the bloodstream. Their main effect is to increase blood flow to the main muscle groups to aid the so-called "fight-or-flight" response, and to increase the sensitivity of the senses.

While blood flow to the main muscle groups is increased, blood flow to some of the body's other areas - including the digestive system - is cut back. This is because evolution has determined that the body can afford a temporary slow down in digestion in order to power up the motor muscles to maximum operational strength. If digestion does stop, it will only be extremely temporarily, in response to a massive flood of epinephrine into the bloodstream. In short, the levels of epinephrine needed in the bloodstream to significantly inhibit digestive function (let alone stop it) for anything longer than a few minutes (let alone two hours!) would render the person dead of epinephrine overdose. It wouldn't and couldn't naturally happen.

So, the second way in which the digestive system stops is when the body is approaching death. The brain starts to shut down in a defined order. The area which regulates digestion is among the first to shut down, followed by the areas which regulate major organs such as the kidneys and liver. The last areas to shut down are those that control respiration and heart function, and finally the brain stem itself shuts down.

But this process only occurs when death is imminent. In Meredith's case, it's likely that her digestive system would have stopped working some 5-10 minutes before her brain-stem death. So we can rule this out in the "two-hour torture" scenario as well.

Meredith Kercher was very likely attacked some time shortly after 9pm, and she was very likely dead before 9.30pm. She was almost certainly dead before 10pm.

 

[LondonJohn]

the burden of proof is on an anonymous Internet poster and not those involved in the case? Hilarious.

Is this really the best you can offer as a comment? The use of the word "you" is clearly meant to imply the prosecution/court. And anyone arguing that the convictions are safe and just has to abide by the same burden of proof if they are going to make a convincing argument.

Meanwhile, have you got anything to say about the actual case itself, or are you going to restrict yourself to comments like this one?

 

[Rolfe]

OK, I'm going to regret jumping in here, and I'm only pressing my nose against the window anyway, but some of what has been said above by Sherlock Holmes is ridiculous.

If Meredith's digestive processes stopped by 9.30pm, then either she was dead or near death, or something overwhelmingly traumatic was happening to her. This seems to be what SH is relying on. You can argue all day about whether it's possible she could have remained alive but in a state of such extreme trauma that her digestive processes remained in abeyance for two or three hours, or not, but the fact remains that by this evidence something overwhelmingly traumatic started to happen to her at about 9.00-9.30 ish, and didn't stop until she was dead, whenever that was.

So who started this traumatic event, if Amanda and Raffaele were elsewhere at that time? Rudy? OK then. Everything is going by the defence timeline in this situation, with Rudy as the Lone Wolf, but instead of clearing off after 10pm, he remains, is discovered by Amanda and Raffaele, and instead of rescuing their friend, they decide to join in the fun of torturing her to death.

On the balance of evidence, how is this unlikely scenario supported, again?

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Is this really the best you can offer as a comment? The use of the word "you" is clearly meant to imply the prosecution/court. And anyone arguing that the convictions are safe and just has to abide by the same burden of proof if they are going to make a convincing argument.

Meanwhile, have you got anything to say about the actual case itself, or are you going to restrict yourself to comments like this one?

Clearly? When the word "you" is directed at a poster, it is hardly clear that it is directed at the prosecution/court (which one, the court or prosecution BTW?).

And until you run this forum, I will comment as I see fit, thank you very much.

 

[Chris C]

You want to know something, take a look at the last 10 posts or so, this is why it is almost impossible to try and carry on a decent conversation with most of you Foaker's and I'm not just singling out you Chris, you are far from alone here. You like to talk about moving the goal posts, I would love to see a better example of that than what we have here. We were only talking about why the TOD could be as late as 11:30 or even later.........

Your talking about how the time of death could be as late as 11:30 or later, but fail to see the flaw in your idea of how it applies to the guilt of Knox/Sollecito. For the ToD to be extended past the ToD of the stomach contents to match the prosecutions proposed ToD using torture, requires the presence of Knox/Sollecito at the beginning of the time in which you want to extend it from. Thus defeating of the whole purpose of even needing to extend the ToD to a time after 11:30 to begin with, because it requires them to be present at the ToD the stomach contents reflect. So whose moving the goal posts? Plus to top that off, if you believe Rudy did start the attack before Knox/Sollecito's arrival, then how did he get in the apartment. The only option is he broke the window, thus meaning that the break in wasn't faked either.

 

[LondonJohn]

Clearly? When the word "you" is directed at a poster, it is hardly clear that it is directed at the prosecution/court (which one, the court or prosecution BTW?).

And until you run this forum, I will comment as I see fit, thank you very much.

Let's put that "you" into context, shall we? Here's what Antony actually wrote:

In any case, if you are making an accusation of murder against someone - as you are - you need something considerably more than "might have", "it's possible", "prove it didn't happen!" etc. The burden of proof is on you.

It's quite clear what Antony means, and that you're merely being semantic (and, if I might respectfully suggest, sophistic) in your attempt to argue that "you" is directed specifically at the poster concerned.

Regarding your second point, I don't recall asking (far less requesting) that you post about the case, as opposed to making snide sarcastic butt-ins. I personally don't care if you post here about the Wars of the Roses, or about GDP growth in China. I was merely asking whether you'd be adding to the actual debate surrounding the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. And I guess I can take the answer as "no"....

 

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe this will help - Foaker's keep bringing this up, the 3 - 4 hour thing and the TOD, but it is not TOD your are looking for because no one except Amanda, Rudy and RS knows how long they actually tortured poor Meredith before they killed her - digestion stops at the first point of attack, that is why anywhere from 9:00 PM to after midnight is possible.

Hi Sherlock,

Your post raises a few things, which do seem to have been covered by others, but I felt that I should respond as well to be polite.

You seem to imply that any attack started at 9pm. This appears at odds with the senario the court produced. Can you point to the evidence that you believe shows that Meredith spend hours being tortured?

Can you also provide any evidence that digestion stops when you are attacked?

Could you also explain where you believe Amanda and Raffaele were at 9pm, and so evidence of this.

Thanks.

 

[lionking]

Edit. Not worth responding.

 

[Rolfe]

This sounds like a re-run of the terminal Larsen melt-down, where his use of the word "you", after billions of electrons had died, was claimed to have been intended in the sense of "one" - a usage which he, as a non-native English speaker, was unaware.

Posting in the passive voice is another way round this of course.

However, when people are having a discussion of this nature, it is actually quite logical to require the people you are discussing with to produce the evidence to support their point of view. Otherwise this merely degenerates into yet another slanging match between those who believe the fallible human beings who arrived at the verdict got it wrong and want to discuss that possibility, and those who simply shout, but the court convicted them, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY, yah boo sucks you lost.

Rolfe.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There hasn't been a debate in this thread for a couple of years. Merely re-assertion of strongly held views.

I'm not overly interested in debate at the moment, rather in the evidence. I'd be happy if you were willing to show what evidence you believes shows what happened that night it'd be great.

In this I'm talking about evidence that actually happened that night, not what happened afterwards.

 

[lionking]

Otherwise this merely degenerates into yet another slanging match between those who believe the fallible human beings who arrived at the verdict got it wrong and want to discuss that possibility, and those who simply shout, but the court convicted them, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY, yah boo sucks you lost. and those who have a different view having looked at the evidence.

Rolfe.

FTFY.

I reserve the right to "butt in", while remaining on topic, whenever I feel like it.

 

[LondonJohn]

FTFY.

I reserve the right to "butt in", while remaining on topic, whenever I feel like it.

Nobody's suggesting that you don't have the right to do just that, and nobody's suggesting that you stop doing it. It's just that it's not very interesting or informative, that's all.

 

[lionking]

Nobody's suggesting that you don't have the right to do just that, and nobody's suggesting that you stop doing it. It's just that it's not very interesting or informative, that's all.

As against the countless repetition of the same arguments? Fair enough.

 

[Rolfe]

FTFY.

I reserve the right to "butt in", while remaining on topic, whenever I feel like it.

I'll thank you to refrain from "fixing" my posts, when their meaning is perfectly clear. Unless both sides are prepared to support their positions with evidence, the discussion will degenerate into exactly the sort of slanging match I described.

Rolfe.