Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

Given the fact that you were wrong about Ms. Dempsey changing her blog and that you never acknowledged your error, can you provide me with a reason to trust your analysis of the appeal or of supporters of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? In addition, you are ignoring that fact that I rebutted the claim that Ms. Knox's supporters are motivated by lust.

Hey it's you and John that have used the word lust, not me. I'd call it more of a psychological obsession rather than lust. As for my analysis of the appeal, of course you don't have to trust it all. It is based on my opinion, you have yours, I have mine.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm an expert in one area, the subject in which I have an advanced degree and have been working in for 17 years. Unlike you, I understand that all the Google reading I do doesn't make me an expert, or even well versed in any other subject outside my field of study and work.

There is a reason why people go to real life doctors rather than rely on the "well-informed" of opinions of folks like you. If you are indeed a forensic pathologist than please except my apologies, if not, I'll go with those who actually put the years of work to obtain a real life professional status.

The ones who said that Meredith very likely died between 2 and 4 hours after starting her final meal, you mean? The ones who testified at the first trial, that is....

I'm guessing your "advanced degree" isn't in law, psychiatry or any scientific subject though.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hey it's you and John that have used the word lust, not me. I'd call it more of a psychological obsession rather than lust. As for my analysis of the appeal, of course you don't have to trust it all. It is based on my opinion, you have yours, I have mine.

It's sophistic to say that you haven't used the word "lust". You have clearly implied it. Let me quote back to you what you said just now:

...most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to.

You are saying here that it's important (in your mind) to "most of the faithful" that Knox is "young", "whacky", not a "bitter women (sic)" or "pushing 30", and a "cute American girl" as criteria for arguing that her conviction is unsafe. Maybe you can explain to me how this doesn't imply lust, since you've made specific reference to Knox's age, gender, personality and nationality.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's sophistic to say that you haven't used the word "lust". You have clearly implied it.

I didn't use the word lust, you did.

You are saying here that it's important (in your mind) to "most of the faithful" that Knox is "young", "whacky", not a "bitter women (sic)" or "pushing 30", and a "cute American girl" as criteria for arguing that her conviction is unsafe. Maybe you can explain to me how this doesn't imply lust, since you've made specific reference to Knox's age, gender, personality and nationality.

Deal with it, as the last appeal will drag on for one or two years most of her followers will leave. You will too.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm guessing your "advanced degree" isn't in law, psychiatry or any scientific subject though.

Nope, it's in secondary education. So what advanced science or law degree do you have?

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope, it's in secondary education. So what advanced science or law degree do you have?

Ah you know the saying: "Those who can, do; those who can't, ........."

Since you ask, I have a BEng in communications engineering, and an MBA in international finance. Fortunately for me, I can carry out and assimilate research pretty well - I know not only its applications but also its limitations. It's clear that you know neither.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope, it's in secondary education. So what advanced science or law degree do you have?

Oh, and by the way, nice selective quoting of my post there. Any comment on the part you cut out? You remember, the part about the testimony of the pathologists regarding ToD and stomach/intestine contents from the first trial? Or were you hoping to quietly let that one pass?

 

[Alt+F4]

Ah you know the saying: "Those who can, do; those who can't, ........."

Guess why you can read what I'm typing....a teacher.

 

[babycondor]

 

[Alt+F4]

You remember, the part about the testimony of the pathologists regarding ToD and stomach/intestine contents from the first trial? Or were you hoping to quietly let that one pass?

Oh yes, the testimony of the pathologists. Just link me to that testimony and I'll give my lay person's opinon.

 

[LondonJohn]

I only knew about her week long relationship with RS but you sure know a lot about her sex life. John, you know who she slept with has nothing to do with her guilty or innocence, right? Seems like you spent significant time reading the tabloids to get this information. I prefer to stick to the evidence, even though we have very little of it in the public domain.

The evidence came out in the trial, actually. Maybe you weren't aware that Mignini originally used it as a core plank of his theory. Here's a report from the Times:

Knox’s sexuality featured heavily in the prosecution case, illuminated by a diary entry in which she listed seven partners, three of whom she slept with after her arrival in Italy (the list excluded Sollecito). Among them was a man she met and had sex with on the train on her way to Perugia. On Facebook, she put down as her interests “men”.

Kercher had already remarked to her father that “Amanda arrived only a week ago and she already has a boyfriend”. Later she told friends that she was shocked to see Knox leave a beauty case with a vibrator and condoms in open view in the bathroom.

We do not know what comments passed between the women, but the prosecution argued that Kercher’s criticism of Knox’s sex life — whether perceived or direct — helped spark in the American a deep hatred of her flatmate, which eventually led to her murder.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6945967.ece

Maybe it's you who needs to read up a little more, eh?

 

[Alt+F4]

So babycondor, do you know when the 40 day delay started?

 

[Alt+F4]

The rest of your post is nothing more than offensive diatribe that has no place here. I'll be asking for its removal.

Oh so you want content you find offensive removed from the Internet. Hmmm....who does this sound like?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh yes, the testimony of the pathologists. Just link me to that testimony and I'll give my lay person's opinon.

I'm a little surprised that your excellent research skills can't lead you to the relevant portions of Massei, where the testimony of the pathologists is directly referenced. But, in the absence of any skill or application on your part, here you are:

Dr. Lalli specified that death was considered as occurring not more than two to three hours after eating (page 47 of the hearing transcript, and the adjustment described in the footnote on February 13, 2008). He stated that the emptying of the stomach occurs between a minimum of two hours and a maximum of four hours after the meal is consumed (page 62, transcripts) and also confirmed that the duodenum was empty (page 63). Answering specific questions from the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, 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).

(Massei, Eng trans, pp115-116)

Then he (Professor Bacci) 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.

(Massei, Eng trans, p119)

The stomach was not emptied and still contained an abundance of material. In general, he (Professor Bacci) observed, the stomach takes 2 to 3 hours after eating to empty. He wanted to stress, however, that this was a subjective indication that may vary depending on the subject’s condition, as well as on the amount and kind of food consumed. He also stated that while it takes 2-3 hours for emptying to take place, ‚when it starts the emptying is fairly quick, when food has reached ...that semi-liquid or fluid aspect... emptying happens quickly‛ (page 32, transcripts).

(Massei, Eng trans, p123)

With regard to the state of digestion, he (Professor Norelli) highlighted zones of uncertainty which would not allow the time of death to be pinpointed. He indicated two to four hours as being the time required for the stomach to empty, underlining however that the situations vary in function of the foods, of the type of subject [i.e. of person], and of possible forms of intolerance for some foods which may be harder to digest than others.

(Massei, Eng trans, p127)

He (Professor Introna) recalled the reports by Dr. Lalli and the other experts stating that under macroscopic examination, the stomach contents revealed a piece of apple and floury fragments which might have been from the crumble or from the pizza. He also recalled that the emptying of the stomach under standard conditions starts around three and a half hours after the start of a meal, say between three and four hours after, and that the term "emptying" indicates the stomach emptying its contents (into the duodenum). He asserted that "knowing that Meredith's meal started at 18:30 pm, knowing that there were about 500 cc of stomach contents, and knowing from the autopsy that there was no pathology of the stomach...which could slow down digestion, and above all", as reported by Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30) and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30)

(Massei, Eng trans, p132)

With respect to the stomach contents, he (Professor Introna) clarified that he took the start of the meal as a parameter and never the end, "because at the start of a meal, the first bolus arrives in the stomach, starts to be attacked by the gastric juices and will be the first chyme to pass the pyloric sphincter into the duodenum. The stomach does not wait for the last mouthful before starting digestion; the stomach starts the digestive process from the first mouthful" (page 82 of the transcripts). According to the data reported by Dr. Lalli, the duodenum was empty and the stomach contained 500 cc and thus "the stomach at the moment of the attack still held all of the gastric contents and had not even begun to empty" (page 83).

(Massei, Eng trans, p138)

 

[LondonJohn]

A note on research:

Suppose I was to pose the question: "What is the mass of the planet Jupiter, in Kg?"

Now, supposing that you were not an astrophysicist or space geologist, how would you go about getting a reliable answer to that question? Well, firstly, you might try Wikipedia. The Wikipedia entry for "Jupiter" says that its mass is 1.8986 x10²⁷Kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-fact-4


Fair enough, you might say, but how might I corroborate that? You might then try the NASA site. That site (which is in fact the source of the Wikipedia data) also puts Jupiter's mass at 1.8986 x10²⁷Kg. You'd expect NASA to get Jupiter's mass correct on its own fact sheet, wouldn't you?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html


So, how about a third source, just to corroborate further? Here's a Princeton University factsheet on Jupiter, which puts its mass at 317.83 times the mass of the Earth. And this tallies exactly with the mass ratio given in both Wikipedia and the NASA site.

http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/planetary_systems/Sol/Jupiter/


So, a little research can tell you with near certainty that the mass of Jupiter is 1.8986 x10²⁷Kg - or at least that this is the best estimate of its mass that anyone on Earth, alive or dead, has ever been able to make. And you've been able to find out this information without being a specialist in the field - you've merely used decent research skills (including good sourcing and multiple-source corroboration) and a minimum amount of scientific knowledge and basic reasoning. You haven't had to actually have the skills, knowledge or training to measure Jupiter's mass yourself*, but you've know where and how to look for reliable results from people who do have the skills, knowledge and training to make the complex measurements.


Now, suppose the question instead were this: "How long does a moderate-sized solid meal stay in the human stomach before it starts to pass through to the duodenum (what's the median time, and the probability curve either side of that median)?"

And suppose the supplementary question was this: "Given the information found in answer to the above question, what is the probability of a person's stomach still being full between 2.5 and 3.5 hours after starting the meal, compared with the probability of the stomach still being full over 4.5 hours after starting the meal?"


* Its mass is actually calculated by observing its gravitational pull on its moons, with knowledge of the distances between Jupiter and its moons and the orbit period of the moons. But you don't need to know that if the only question that needs answering is "What is Jupiter's mass?".

 

[babycondor]

So babycondor, do you know when the 40 day delay started?

According to an Associated Press story:

The experts — originally scheduled to conclude their review on Monday [May 9], and then report to the court on May 21 — have asked for a delay of about 40 days, according to the ANSA news agency. The request was confirmed Friday [May 6] by Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, and by Luca Maori, an attorney for Sollecito....

The next hearing will still be held on May 21. But the court will hear remaining witnesses, rather than the evidence review, and set a calendar, the lawyers said. The experts will likely present their findings to the court between late June and early July.

The story does not indicate the exact date the "about 40" day extension began.

 

[Alt+F4]

According to an Associated Press story:

The story does not indicate the exact date the "about 40" day extension began.

Thanks for the link. I guess it will be clarified at the May 21st hearing.

 

[LondonJohn]

According to an Associated Press story:



The story does not indicate the exact date the "about 40" day extension began.

The 40-day delay is from May 21st.

May 21st + 40 days = June 30th

 

[Antony]

The appeal is going just fine so far.

Indeed it is.

No I haven't taken you off "ignore" - I just clicked "view post" in case you had anything to say after my last.

Evidently by the above, both you and Amazer imagine that the appeal is confirming your opinions about the case. This just shows how far removed from reality you actually are: the course of the appeal so far has confirmed the innocence view at every turn - 3 central planks of the prosecution case (Curatolo's "eye-witness" testimony, the alleged murder weapon, and the bra clasp) have all been shown to have no substance as evidence at all.

Currently, the appeal court judge has ordered Stefanoni to provide the withheld evidence on her lab procedures which those on the side of truth have always argued should have been provided to the defence during the original trial.

Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal.

I won't add to what LondonJohn said earlier about unsupportable certainty, although if Judge Hellmann, against all indications, refuses the appeal it will be a decision even less sustainable than the original verdict. In that event, it won't change the truth, which is that Amanda and Raffaele were at his flat for the whole night of the crime, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

What will the faithful do then? As the lovebirds final appeal to the Supreme Court drags on for a few more years most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to. And in the next case, as in this one, the faithful will continue believe that have complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from forensic pathology to international law to criminal psychology....all because they can Google.

Whereas you, by contrast will claim complete knowledge of what happened in Meredith's room with no facts to support it whatsoever, neither from Google nor from any facts presented to the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

New York's not my home

Hey it's you and John that have used the word lust, not me. I'd call it more of a psychological obsession rather than lust. As for my analysis of the appeal, of course you don't have to trust it all. It is based on my opinion, you have yours, I have mine.

Alt+F4,

I see that you have chosen to evade (not to respond to) the arguments why Knox and Sollecito's supporters are not sexually obsessed. Some of these arguments apply to obsession generally. Do you have any facts, citations or anything else to support your opinion? In my part of the country we try to support our arguments, but I cannot force you to do so.

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and Rolfe is a pathologist. I suggest you check out some of Rolfe's comments on the stomach content in the Conspiracy thread. There are other comments as well, IIRC.