Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

You are welcome

pilot padron,

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

Simply pick any of the myriad of absolutely mindless unfounded opinions expressed endlessly here that "Amanda and Raffaele will win the Appeal and be released soon".

Surely you have no difficulty recalling frequently reading (and recoiling?) over same.
Surely you need none of my assistance in this elementary endeavor.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rock science

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).

spartacus,

You are probably aware that Sgt. Pasquali did a rock-throwing demonstration that was discussed at Perugia-Shock. Comodi asked whether the rock were throw overhanded or underhanded, or some such thing. I agree completely that someone should do the follow up experiment, as you suggest, and show that the climb is possible. However, some months ago Charlie Wilkes posted a link to a video on something called freestyle running, or something fairly close to this, and what those guys did was far more impressive than what a burglar would have had to do.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Of course you're totally correct. And it's also been long known by those of us without qualifications or direct experience in pathology or GI physiology, but with objectivity, inquiring minds, and an ability to assimilate and interpret research. Meredith Kercher almost certainly started her last meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm, and she almost certainly died at some point between 9pm and 9.30pm (and most definitely died before 10pm). Massei's court was unequivocally wrong in accepting the ToD put forward by the prosecutor (and pushed ever-later during the trial itself, in order to correlate with other prosecution witnesses), and in my view the defence were poor in not strongly challenging this in the first trial. They will not make the same mistake in the appeal - if it gets that far.

What you have to keep reminding yourself when debating with certain posters on this thread is that certain pro-guilt individuals have deeply wedded themselves to an opinion, and seem unable or unwilling to modify or change that opinion - even in the face of incredibly strong evidence challenging or refuting their beliefs. I believe that this is a character defect ("I can't be seen to have been wrong or to be changing my mind"). They will consequently attempt to rationalise everything in an ever-more-futile attempt to prop up their position, or they'll attempt to obfuscate, or they'll simply choose to ignore and change the subject. It's actually quite sad to watch in action.

 

[LondonJohn]

Simply pick any of the myriad of absolutely mindless unfounded opinions expressed endlessly here that "Amanda and Raffaele will win the Appeal and be released soon".

Surely you have no difficulty recalling frequently reading (and recoiling?) over same.
Surely you need none of my assistance in this elementary endeavor.

Umm, that's not cheerleading. That's stating an opinion - what's more, it's stating an opinion that is entirely reasonable (some would say "obvious") in light of the known flaws in the first trial, the known mistakes of the defence in the first trial, and the number of large holes that have already been made in the prosecution's case so far during the appeal trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I think some people are still having difficulty understanding the the trial process within the Italian criminal justice system. There is no appeal to be "won" or "lost" - as there is in the UK or US system. The first appeal is a brand new trial, with a brand new verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty".

And understanding this difference between the two systems is also important in understanding what the burden of proof is in the appeal trial. In the UK/US model, an appeal is made by the defence to challenge specific findings of fact or legal rulings from the original trial. It's incumbent upon the defence teams to convince the appeal judges that mistakes or inaccuracies occurred in the original trial, to such a degree that an overturning of a guilty verdict or a retrial is necessary.

In the Italian system, however, this is not what an appeal means. The first appeal is in fact a totally new trial, in which the entire burden of proof is once again placed onto the prosecution (and the court). It is held entirely independent from the first trial - except for the fact that all the evidence and witness testimony introduced in the first trial is automatically entered into the first appeal. But all the arguments, judicial panel deliberations and verdict are entirely new.

 

[Paninaro]

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.

I believe in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. The TOD-argument seems very strong presented this way.

But there is a lot of professors mentioned in the Masseireport and their conclusion appear to be that the stomach content cannot be used to determine a TOD before 22.00 or even 23.00.

For example:

Consequently, assuming that Meredith began to eat at around 6 pm, the gastric emptying could have occurred around midnight, or even later. The responses given by experts, on precisely this point, at the November 27, 2007 hearing before the GIP during the pre-trial phase were even more clarifying. Specifically, with reference to the pizza and thus to the foodstuffs that Meredith would have begun to eat at around 6 pm on November 1, 2007, Professor Umani Ronchi spoke of a gastric-emptying time of 6 to 7 hours (page 46 of the transcripts of the [182] statement of said hearing). With even greater expository efficiency, Professor Cingolani emphasised that the criterion of stomach contents is the most untrustworthy, the most unreliable criterion for determining the time of death, since it can result in variations that can go from 1 to 12 hours, or even more (see the hearing testimony of November 26, 2007, page 55).

Massei translation p. 178

So how are they wrong, exactly?

 

[pilot padron]

Umm, that's not cheerleading. That's stating an opinion - what's more, it's stating an opinion that is entirely reasonable (some would say "obvious") in light of the known flaws in the first trial, the known mistakes of the defence in the first trial, and the number of large holes that have already been made in the prosecution's case so far during the appeal trial.

Ummmm
But obviously not 'obvious' to the above 2 individuals whom for reasons I clearly enunciated are to me above the 'everybody has one' demeaning nomenclature I originally objected to.

To me, lesser qualified individuals with lesser inside knowledge and/or lesser demonstrated judgement skills are repeatedly doing here little other than what I reserve the right to parse as 'cheerleading'.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. The TOD-argument seems very strong presented this way.

But there is a lot of professors mentioned in the Masseireport and their conclusion appear to be that the stomach content cannot be used to determine a TOD before 22.00 or even 23.00.

For example:

Massei translation p. 178

So how are they wrong, exactly?

Those quotes are discussing stomach emptying times (i.e. the time for ALL the food matter to transit out of the stomach), and as such they are totally irrelevant. The relevant timing to be discussed is the time after which the FIRST of the food matter starts to leave the stomach - it's this time point which had not yet been reached in Meredith's case.

I've quoted the parts of Massei in which the various expert witnesses (for both the prosecution and the defence) deal with the relevant timing in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7183646#post7183646

As you'll see, they all put that relevant time at something between 2 and 4 hours. And the police pathologist who actually conducted the autopsy puts the time (correctly) at 2-3 hours maximum.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ummmm
But obviously not 'obvious' to the above 2 individuals whom for reasons I clearly enunciated are to me above the 'everybody has one' demeaning nomenclature I originally objected to.

To me, lesser qualified individuals with lesser inside knowledge and/or lesser demonstrated judgement skills are repeatedly doing here little other than what I reserve the right to parse as 'cheerleading'.

Well, you're wrong - in my humble opinion.

And do you know what the word "parse" actually means? Because it doesn't mean what it looks like you think it means.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I believe in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. The TOD-argument seems very strong presented this way.

But there is a lot of professors mentioned in the Masseireport and their conclusion appear to be that the stomach content cannot be used to determine a TOD before 22.00 or even 23.00.

For example:

Massei translation p. 178

So how are they wrong, exactly?

Massei does a nice smoke and mirrors here, he uses that time that it takes to fully empty the stomach and uses that to cover the fact that the stomach starts to empty within 3-4 hours max, emptying out over the next 2-3 hours. Thus when he quotes the 6-7 hours, that is to having an empty stomach. Meredith's was still full, it hadn't started to empty at all.

 

[spartacus]

I believe in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. The TOD-argument seems very strong presented this way.

But there is a lot of professors mentioned in the Masseireport and their conclusion appear to be that the stomach content cannot be used to determine a TOD before 22.00 or even 23.00.

For example:

Massei translation p. 178

So how are they wrong, exactly?

In the absence of someone with a gastric pathology this is simply wrong. Gastric contents empy between about 2-4 hours and as Rolfe emphasized the only thing that matters is when it BEGINS to empty since the duodenum was completely free of content.

This is an error of the court that is probably greater than the DNA problem. Only in Perugia will you find someone to say that the stomach emptying is unreliable or takes 7 hours to begin. This is simply poppycock nonsens.

 

[spartacus]

Massei does a nice smoke and mirrors here, he uses that time that it takes to fully empty the stomach and uses that to cover the fact that the stomach starts to empty within 3-4 hours max, emptying out over the next 2-3 hours. Thus when he quotes the 6-7 hours, that is to having an empty stomach. Meredith's was still full, it hadn't started to empty at all.

This is probably the best example of where he is flat out wrong, controvening even his own experts. In the DNA and mixed blood fiascoes he did a better job of obscuring his language with his leading comments.

 

[platonov]

Barn Doors and character defects.

Originally Posted by spartacus

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).

spartacus,

You are probably aware that Sgt. Pasquali did a rock-throwing demonstration that was discussed at Perugia-Shock. Comodi asked whether the rock were throw overhanded or underhanded, or some such thing. I agree completely that someone should do the follow up experiment, as you suggest, and show that the climb is possible. However, some months ago Charlie Wilkes posted a link to a video on something called freestyle running, or something fairly close to this, and what those guys did was far more impressive than what a burglar would have had to do.

A while back someone posted a link to a youtube video of a young woman with what might have been an Idaho accent, throwing a large rock at a 'replica' shutter mounted on a 'Barn Door' IIRC

Do you have that link halides1 ?

It was IMHO one of the strongest arguments for the CT/railroad position that I've seen on this thread.

ETA I see my earlier ETA was in vain !

 

[babycondor]

Shaky Ground

.....

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)

The Mod you are relying on here has recently stated:

"I have only a passing familiarity with this case; most of what I know about it I have learned here.....Again, I am perfectly willing to concede that I haven't studied the case in the depth that many of you here have, so it is entirely possible that there is evidence of which I am not aware that would alter my opinion."

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)

You should review Charlie Wilkes' posts on this subject. For example, on 30 January 2011 he wrote:

"...with this case we have the advantage that it has generated more publicity than any wrongful conviction since Dreyfus. The authorities will lose, in the end, no matter how desperately they fight."

My "take" is that Charlie was (at that time anyway) cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the appeal. He may have changed his outlook since then, I don't know.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Already happened.

That's good news!

A group of Italian legislators led by Rocco Girlanda has filed a petition with the president of Italy and the Italian justice ministry requesting an investigation into the conduct of Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and others in Amanda’s trial. This important request for an investigation was read aloud before the Italian parliament.

The second development involves a letter to the President of the United States and copied to all members of Congress that also requests an investigation, this time for failure by U.S. consular officials to fulfill their obligations to safeguard the rights of Amanda Knox under Italian law.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

short- versus long-term

baby condor,

My impression is that Charlie feels that the first appeal will toss some of the worst evidence, then uphold the conviction. He feels that their release will come later. It is possible that he is being overly pessimistic with respect to the first appeal.

 

[Rolfe]

Those quotes are discussing stomach emptying times (i.e. the time for ALL the food matter to transit out of the stomach), and as such they are totally irrelevant. The relevant timing to be discussed is the time after which the FIRST of the food matter starts to leave the stomach - it's this time point which had not yet been reached in Meredith's case.

I've quoted the parts of Massei in which the various expert witnesses (for both the prosecution and the defence) deal with the relevant timing in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7183646#post7183646

As you'll see, they all put that relevant time at something between 2 and 4 hours. And the police pathologist who actually conducted the autopsy puts the time (correctly) at 2-3 hours maximum.

Massei does a nice smoke and mirrors here, he uses that time that it takes to fully empty the stomach and uses that to cover the fact that the stomach starts to empty within 3-4 hours max, emptying out over the next 2-3 hours. Thus when he quotes the 6-7 hours, that is to having an empty stomach. Meredith's was still full, it hadn't started to empty at all.

In the absence of someone with a gastric pathology this is simply wrong. Gastric contents empy between about 2-4 hours and as Rolfe emphasized the only thing that matters is when it BEGINS to empty since the duodenum was completely free of content.

This is an error of the court that is probably greater than the DNA problem. Only in Perugia will you find someone to say that the stomach emptying is unreliable or takes 7 hours to begin. This is simply poppycock nonsens.

Several people seem to have got it. This has been explained in exhaustive detail already. I am at a loss to understand how some posters are still failing to understand this perfectly simple concept.

If the deceased's stomach was found to be empty, then one must put the time of death long enough after the last meal for that to have happened. That's where all the data on "stomach emptying" comes from. They're talking about the time for all the food to have left the stomach. This can, as has been said, be quite a variable interval.

However, Meredith's stomach was found to be full. Not only that, her duodenum was found to be empty. This puts the time of death much earlier in relation to the last meal. It puts it at some time before the stomach began to empty. As has been repeatedly pointed out, this time is about 2 to 3 hours after the meal, with a stretch to 4 hours maybe possible.

Even a meal taken at 7 o'clock wouldn't readily support a time of death as late as 11.30, actually.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If you show me your agenda, I'll show you mine

A while back someone posted a link to a youtube video of a young woman with what might have been an Idaho accent, throwing a large rock at a 'replica' shutter mounted on a 'Barn Door' IIRC

Do you have that link halides1 ?

I'll look for it if you can show me a video where Massei's theory of how the window was broken was tested.

 

[Kaosium]

I believe in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. The TOD-argument seems very strong presented this way.

But there is a lot of professors mentioned in the Masseireport and their conclusion appear to be that the stomach content cannot be used to determine a TOD before 22.00 or even 23.00.

For example:

Massei translation p. 178

So how are they wrong, exactly?

He says 'many factors' influence digestion many times and then changes the subject and starts talking about other things and hopes you won't notice. He only actually comes up with one possible thing which could occurred, which is a deliberate deception as it's silly as hell and could have been easily 'proven' by showing the tape of the autopsy which they simply can't do, being as it didn't happen that way at all. Mignini had a doctor who'd never viewed the tape 'hypothesize' how this could happen, and Massei sticks it in at the end hoping no one noticed he spent ten paragraphs trying to baffle everyone with BS.

I wrote a post on this elsewhere.

 

[Diocletus]

I'll look for it if you can show me a video where Massei's theory of how the window was broken was tested.

Found!: youtube.com/watch?v=2FUxUiMyt70