Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

That certainly is the $64,000 question. Do you want to link her to the crime? If so, why?

No.

 

[Kaosium]

To the extent that people find non sequiturs interesting.

Lionking, do you think I'm just being mean when I disparage the Italian Court System? You can see it right here in this link, a prosecutor in Italy can file charges on just about anyone, on the basis of just about anything he wants, in fact according to their procedure he's compelled to.

I and many other posters could have charges filed on us for the naughty things we say about their police and courts. In fact if an Italian prosecutor were to read this thread theoretically he'd be required to. It's not going to happen, of course, but that it could should tell you something about just how far out of touch with reality they are.

 

[Rolfe]

Click on the top right hand corner - takes you to the thread ; thought everyone knew that

And? If you take the trouble to post a single-post link rather than the standard link to the post in context, it's unlikely that I'm going to bother chasing any further.

And - It also contains a quoted post of mine. [did you really not spot that ??]

Another cryptic clue, which it seems the actual post from Rose Montague refutes.

Its neither your problem nor mine and our opinions (and those of Rose Montague or others) carry no weight in the courtroom.

As I said, I'm mainly lurking, interested in the way the arguments are presented and in which side is tending to sway me to their point of view.

However - the fact that the defence experts accept and seem to go for a possible meal start time as late as 7pm is (one of) the salient point which deals with your original post I replied to here.
Note : 'here' is also a link.

It seems we have finally got there.

However, since a very reasonable and well-argued case has been made for a start time as late as 7pm being impossible, the mere fact that the defence team accepted that is not enough to clinch the matter. Don't talk to me about incompetent defence lawyers, I've had them up to here.

But given the torturous path taken and the fact I had given you this info via link weeks ago on the CT thread and in clearly visible posts addressed to other posters you will hopefully understand my (and others) reluctance to repeatedly engage in substantive arguments on issues more complex than telling the time.

What you don't seem to understand is that a bald statement that the defence appear to have accepted that the meal started at 7pm does not outweigh actual evidence that it did no such thing. Other people have taken the trouble to post such evidence, and you seem to have your fingers in your ears and be humming real loud.

And if you don't want to "repeatedly" engage in substantive arguments, and instead favour cryptic innuendo and veiled rudeness, then maybe you'd be better off finding something else to do with your time.

ps If you don't like my 'riddles' the later shoehorning in of IRA to get "ETA My PFLP-GC / IRA" probably wasn't appreciated either

I don't understand your riddles.

It may be that I'm in position of someone coming into a Lockerbie thread and declaring that it's obvious tray B8849 on the Erac printout proves there was an unaccompanied item carried on flight KM180 from Malta. Which is in fact not the case. However, I would approach such an argument by explaining why it isn't the case, not by cryptic assertions and impenetrable "riddles".

Your mileage seems to vary.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

And yet regardless of whether the defence accepted that it might have been possible, it doesn't change the fact that it simply wasn't possible. None of the witnesses put the meal start beyond 6:30pm, most of them put it between 6:00pm and 6:30pm, and if that wasn't enough we can do the math ourselves.

We know that Meredith got filmed walking back to the Cottage at 8:55pm, it would have taken her about 10 minutes to get there, which places her leaving her friends at around 8:45pm, roughly when those witnesses claim she left. We know that the movie they watched is 123 mins long and that she left as soon as it finished, so that means that the movie had to start at around 6:42pm, maybe as late as 6:45pm if she left during the credits, or they stopped the credits. Since we also know from the witnesses that they ate dinner before watching the movie, they can not have started the meal at 7pm, except perhaps in an alternative universe where 7pm comes before 6:45pm. That they had to have finished the meal before 6:45pm, would push it back to at least 6:30pm, or even 6:15pm since it was two courses (15 mins a course), either of which would strongly agree with the witness statments.

So one has to wonder, were all Meredith's friends lying about what happened that night? Because that would be the only way that a mealtime of 7pm could possibly have happened, but hey, that'd be a whole new conspriacy for you.

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. Is this information in error? Because if it's not, repeatedly parroting that "the defence accepted a start time of 7pm" doesn't cut it.

Rolfe.

 

[NewtonTrino]

If one can link her to the crime, why does one need to pick a narrative? If one can't, why would one want to?

I would argue that the investigative jury should have a coherent theory of the crime if they want to convict someone of it. Now, I'm talking about an absolutely proven timeline, just something that fits the evidence which can have probabilities assigned that make sense. This is standard in any kind of murder case that I've ever seen.

I have yet to hear such a theory that makes even the remotest sense. How in the hell did Amanda and Rudy get together to commit a sex crime on Meredith? This just doesn't make any sense at all. Saying that she smoked the reefer somehow makes her a murderer? I don't think so.

In fact the simplest explanation is that Rudy was responsible here. That's such a more likely scenario to me that the standard of proof for another theory would have to be pretty darn high.

Either way I've literally never heard anyone explain coherently a scenario that makes sense involving the three of them.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. Is this information in error? Because if it's not, repeatedly parroting that "the defence accepted a start time of 7pm" doesn't cut it.

Rolfe.

The defense is in error to use a meal time of 6:30 to 7:00 PM and in error to at one point mention a maximum possible TOD at 10:30 because if they really ate at 6PM (as stated by 3 witnesses) that puts the TOD outside of the 4 hour maximum used by one of the experts putting them in the same realm of improbability as the prosecution using 7PM and claiming 11:30PM as a TOD.

Most of those here believe the TOD to be closer to 9:30PM and the cell phone records mentioned in the defense arguments point to this TOD as well. The quote from Raffaele's appeal is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6220709&postcount=4335

The defense analysis (Raffaele's appeal) of the phone records place a TOD between 9-10PM:

The objective analysis of the data relative to Meredith’s cell phone, then, reveals elements which are fundamental to the reconstruction of events and allows us to place the death of Meredith Kercher at between 20.56 and 21.58 on 1 November 2007.

 

[platonov]

'the 128th time' ? and counting

The defense is in error to use a meal time of 6:30 to 7:00 PM and in error to at one point mention a maximum possible TOD at 10:30 because if they really ate at 6PM (as stated by 3 witnesses) that puts the TOD outside of the 4 hour maximum used by one of the experts putting them in the same realm of improbability as the prosecution using 7PM and claiming 11:30PM as a TOD.

Most of those here believe the TOD to be closer to 9:30PM and the cell phone records mentioned in the defense arguments point to this TOD as well. The quote from Raffaele's appeal is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6220709&postcount=4335

The defense analysis (Raffaele's appeal) of the phone records place a TOD between 9-10PM:

See Link & Link


Also the '2nd course' an apple based dish, was consumed later around ~ 8pm apparently.

Note those Links above are actually links.

 

[PhantomWolf]

See Link & Link

Do you have any links to witnesses that claim the dinner was at 7pm? If not then it is clear that the 7pm figure is being pulled out of someone's posterier. How about we go with the evidence and not what someone that wasn't there thinks?

Also the '2nd course' an apple based dish, was consumed later around ~ 8pm apparently.

So the meal wasn't being digested previous to that?

 

[platonov]

Do you have any links to witnesses that claim the dinner was at 7pm? If not then it is clear that the 7pm figure is being pulled out of someone's posterier. How about we go with the evidence and not what someone that wasn't there thinks?

That would certainly shorten the thread

So the meal wasn't being digested previous to that?

Which - the 1 course or the 2 course meal

I was merely responding to the "Is this information in error?" Q posed above and you want to move the goalposts.

ETA And before we have anther 50,000 words on it (as a result) the point that meal start time is the salient parameter has already been pointed out 163 times.

 

[Rolfe]

Note, please, that the important point is the time of the start of the meal. The empty duodenum is a marker of when the stomach began to empty. This is related to the start of eating, and how long eating continues thereafter will have little effect on that.

If you eat a pizza at six o'clock, ingesta will begin to pass into the duodenum at a time determined by that start time. Eating something else at 8 o'clock, say, doesn't magically cause duodenal contents to back-track into the stomach again.

Much of the discussion earlier, which seemed to be based on what was said in court, was about the time it would take for the stomach to empty. That's often an issue, so it's perhaps understandable people fixated on it in this case. However it isn't the issue here. Stomach emptying isn't the point, the point is when duodenal filling begins.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

challenging the evidence

In part, completeness. In part, the testimony is what the court had to go on. In considering whether the trial was fair it's what was said in court that counts, isn't it?

shuttlt,

What is said at the trial is certainly an important element of whether or not the trial were fair. However, now that Dalla Vedova has confirmed publicly that the defense never got the forensic files, the factual question of whether or not the trial were fail is completely settled in my mind. Evidence that one is not allowed to examine and challenge is inimical to the concept of a fair trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what does she know that only a guilty person would know?

In my opinion, Ms. Knox has guilty knowledge regarding the murder.

jhunter1163,

Can you clarify what you mean by guilty knowledge?

 

[pilot padron]

Everyone also has an .........

Not as mod:
I think it very likely that the appeals will fail.
This opinion has not, and will not, affect any moderation I have done or will do in this thread.

LOL, well we all know what they say about opinions.

Not sure what you argue by reminding us again "what we all know".

However, may I just expand to what some may not know:

1) A Volunteer Moderator's. opinions and ability to form judgements have been deemed sufficiently well founded that s/he is allowed to determine when and if other posters here have violated the Membership Agreement.
May I suggest that *to me* this demonstrated ability in itself puts his/her *opinion* well above the much less qualified run of the mill very vocal 'Amanda forever cheer leading' opinions so prevalent here.
(Disclaimer by Mod's last sentence understood and appreciated)

2) Charlie Wilkes also has expressed an identical belief that the Appeals will fail.
Most here realize that if nothing else, he probably has access to and a storehouse of more information about the case than anyone else posting here.(Much of which was provided to Family only)
May I suggest similar superiority be alluded to that opinion.

Just my refinement of the above well worn derogatory argument about universality and omnipresence of opinions, intended to diminish the significance of the latest proffered.
(possibly solely because it runs counter to preferred)

 

[spartacus]

shuttlt,
We have the Massei summary, and we have news articles written by reporters who covered the trial. Some of them lean toward guilt and others toward innocence. In addition, we can view films of her and her colleagues collecting samples. With respect to the DNA profiling, we have the elecropherograms themselves. For example it is obvious that Meredith's profile on the knife falls into the low template number range of DNA profiling just by looking at it. It is also fairly obvious that there are multiple contributors to the bra clasp. BTW, I don't hate Stefanoni personally; I just think that she does not do her work in an objective way.

There is also this experiment that Dr. Hampikian performed showing that he was able to come up with DNA of someone in his dean's office on a knife simply by not changing gloves in the course of a evidence collection.

@shuttit as for "not believing in introduced false memory memes" this is not a matter of religion it is one of science, as I have posted links for you here before, but if you are going to selectively exclude information, so be it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RoseMontague,

Thanks for the link. The quote is from Zach Nowak:

"The experts made it clear, very politely, that Dr. Stefanoni and the rest of the CSI folks in Rome had not been super cooperative.The experts had a problem getting information from Stefanoni. They had to ask repeatedly. At one point Stefanoni said to them, you don’t need that. And the judge came back to her and said, yeah, I do." Why would Dr. Stefanoni be telling them what they do or do not need?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

secondary transfer and the knife

There is also this experiment that Dr. Hampikian performed showing that he was able to come up with DNA of someone in his dean's office on a knife simply by not changing gloves in the course of a evidence collection.

spartacus,

Thanks for the link. Here is a quote:
"Using four 'suspects' from a BSU dean’s office, Hampikian research associate Mike Davis and volunteer researcher Laura Wendel conducted an experiment. Davis donned a lab coat and gloves and collected a used soda can from an employee. Without changing gloves, he went to another room to collect a brand-new knife. Then he changed gloves and lab coat and repeated the process with each of the other employees. In one case, the knife tested positive for the employee’s DNA, even though she had never seen the knife or been in the same room as the knife.
'That is what I think happened in the case of (Knox’s) knife,' Hampikian said. 'Transfer does occur.'"
I have written a number of times pointing out that Dr. Stefanoni's beliefs about the frequency with which one should change gloves runs counter to guidelines that I have seen, as well as a major textbook. It is also satisfying to see someone test his hypothesis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

federal grants

_________________

Kaosium,

Well, judging from a few minutes of Google searching, the kids in the Pentagon know there's an Idaho.

Over the last few years Greg Hampikian hasn't been shy about using Department of Defense money to further his research interests. See HERE and HERE and HERE.

_____
NOTE: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has nothing to do with obesity. It's a part of the United States Department of Defense.

///

Fine,

A cursory look at the work suggests to me that these are all reasonable subjects for research. My own experience with grants from the federal government is that they have tight oversight of the whole process. One generally provides yearly progress reports. When it comes time to renew a grant and one has deviated from one's previous research plan, one has to justify the deviations to the panel who reviews the grant renewal application.

 

[spartacus]

Absolutely!

Already happened.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What Cheer

May I suggest that *to me* this demonstrated ability in itself puts his/her *opinion* well above the much less qualified run of the mill very vocal 'Amanda forever cheer leading' opinions so prevalent here.
(Disclaimer by Mod's last sentence understood and appreciated)

pilot padron,

Would you provide an example of "Amanda forever cheer leading?" Thanks in advance.

 

[spartacus]

spartacus,

Thanks for the link. Here is a quote:
"Using four 'suspects' from a BSU dean’s office, Hampikian research associate Mike Davis and volunteer researcher Laura Wendel conducted an experiment. Davis donned a lab coat and gloves and collected a used soda can from an employee. Without changing gloves, he went to another room to collect a brand-new knife. Then he changed gloves and lab coat and repeated the process with each of the other employees. In one case, the knife tested positive for the employee’s DNA, even though she had never seen the knife or been in the same room as the knife.
'That is what I think happened in the case of (Knox’s) knife,' Hampikian said. 'Transfer does occur.'"
I have written a number of times pointing out that Dr. Stefanoni's beliefs about the frequency with which one should change gloves runs counter to guidelines that I have seen, as well as a major textbook. It is also satisfying to see someone test his hypothesis.

Now we need to get the Idaho team to go throw a 9 lb rock at the second floor window of 7 via della Pergola and then step on the grate and climb in through the window (oh open the shutters before throwing the rock of course).