Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Why is it that you are unable to comprehend that I do understand the difference, and just do not interpret it the same way that you do?

In simpler language ... I disagree with you about this. What is truly incomprehensible is your apparent inability to grasp that.

That you disagree is obvious. What is also obvious is that you rebuff every attempt to elicit a comprehensible reason for this disagreement.



The facts are that there is a broken window in a location that would afford entry to a would be burglar. The prosecutions claim is that this was staged.

It would be impossible to prove that the break-in was not staged because Raffaele could have gone outside, thrown a rock in through the window and climbed in. The physical evidence left behind in such a case would be indistinguishable from the same event enacted by Rudy Guede. So the burden of proving that the break-in was staged and therefore evidence against Amanda and Raffaele rests with the prosecution and those arguing the prosecutions side.

Those weak arguments that a burglar would have chosen another window or would have swept the glass off the sill don't hold any weight because Raffaele could have also chosen another window or swept the glass off the sill but the facts are that another window wasn't chosen and the glass wasn't swept off the sill.

 

[christianahannah]

Another interesting piece of testimony from Robyn Butterworth (one of Meredith's English friends) regarding the relationship between Meredith and Amanda:



So apparently Amanda had asked Meredith if she wanted to go out on the very evening of the murder, and Meredith had apparently replied with regret that she couldn't do so because of her existing plans. This doesn't sound to me (or to any objective observer) as though the two girls were not on friendly terms on the night of November 1st 2007.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...girl--arrive-to-incriminate-knox-1609172.html

The Massei Motivations doesn't give this same date as the Independent article by Popham. On page 34 (of the motivations) it gives the time of this invitation by Amanda as October 31.

 

[Alt+F4]

Again, the ending means nothing. The range of starting is again what counts. That range is 5:30-6:30PM.

Unlikely. Robyn Butterworth said that Meredith arrived at her house around 4pm. So you are going to argue that they ate nothing until 5:30-6:30?

 

[Matthew Best]

Unlikely. Robyn Butterworth said that Meredith arrived at her house around 4pm. So you are going to argue that they ate nothing until 5:30-6:30?

This seems like a particularly stupid argument from incredulity. Don't people normally wait until they are hungry to eat? I know I generally do.... 4pm would seem early for dinner to me and I wouldn't expect to be fed at this time if I went to a friend's house.

 

[Rolfe]

It depends wholly upon the final meal start time. And in this particular case, it's highlighted further by the fact that recognisable semi-broken-down elements of pizza were found in Meredith's stomach.

Hang on a minute. Assuming that recognisable bits of pizza (the first course) were found in the stomach, any time of death beyond about three hours from eating the pizza is fantasy, and even three hours is definitely on the improbable side.

*Hence the frantic repetitive arguments which seek to push it back as early as possible on this thread despite what the defence docs and 'Massei' record.

Actually, it's not possible to push it back to the earliest it might have been simply on the recollections of the friends, based on what LondonJohn said about the recognisable bits of pizza. To make that compatible with the earliest time of death possible from other evidence, that is a few minutes before nine, I would have to assume that Meredith didn't start tucking into that pizza till maybe 6.30.

I think you're right that she didn't start the pizza quite as early as has been suggested - because if she had, there would have been more digestion even by nine o'clock.

I agree, there are subtleties about this case I'm not even aware of. However, it's simply blindingly obvious Meredith was killed almost as soon as she returned home, and I'm baffled as to why anyone seems to think they can dispute this.

And don't talk to me about what lawyers said. I've sat in court and had to listen to my own expert witness evidence being "interpreted" beyond recognition by both defence and prosecution (in different cases, natch), and pig-ignorant barristers wilfully mangling stuff they heard or read in textbooks to make completely spurious points.

I don't imagine Italian lawyers are any better.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Unlikely. Robyn Butterworth said that Meredith arrived at her house around 4pm. So you are going to argue that they ate nothing until 5:30-6:30?

You're not making any sense. She simply can't have eaten anything before 5.30, if she is known to have been alive at 8.45 and her duodenum was empty at PM. So maybe her friends came from Edinburgh ("you'll have had your tea?"), or she refused a snack because she wasn't hungry, or didn't want to spoil her appetite for the pizza, whatever.

I fail to see what point you're making anyway. You have to deal with the fact that the start of passage from food into the duodenum is early enough after the start of a meal to rule out a ToD of 11.30 (or, frankly, anything much beyond nine). I don't see how you think postulating some hypothetical food taken even earlier is going to help your case.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

This seems like a particularly stupid argument from incredulity. Don't people normally wait until they are hungry to eat? I know I generally do.... 4pm would seem early for dinner to me and I wouldn't expect to be fed at this time if I went to a friend's house.

How do you know when any of these women were hungry? Personally I wouldn't eat dinner at 4pm but who would not want/get a snack/treat when coming over at 4 when dinner wasn't goint to be until 5:30-6:30?

 

[Rolfe]

How do you know when any of these women were hungry? Personally I wouldn't eat dinner at 4pm but who would not want/get a snack/treat when coming over at 4 when dinner wasn't goint to be until 5:30-6:30?

Lots of people. Young women watching their weight. Someone wanting to keep their appetite for the pizza. Someone whose friends were disorganised, or stingy, or watching their own weight.

This is pointless. For whatever reason, Meredith didn't eat anything at 4pm. We know that because she lived at least until 8.45, and yet her duodenum was empty.

Where do you think this line of argument is going anyway?

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

You're not making any sense. She simply can't have eaten anything before 5.30, if she is known to have been alive at 8.45 and her duodenum was empty at PM.

What PM? And of course she ate before 5:30pm that day.

 

[Rolfe]

Post mortem. And of course she ate before 5.30. I presume she had lunch.

However, we're talking about the gastric-duodenal transit of the pizza she had at (I think) 6.30. What does lunch have to do with it? Or yesterday's dinner, for that matter?

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

We know that because she lived at least until 8.45, and yet her duodenum was empty.

You should really read more about this case before posting. NO ONE on either side of the case thinks she was dead at 8:45. It's with absolute certainy that she was alive until at least 9:15. Depending on who you believe she died sometime between 9:15 - 11:00.

 

[Matthew Best]

What PM? And of course she ate before 5:30pm that day.

Evidence?

 

[Alt+F4]

Post mortem. And of course she ate before 5.30. I presume she had lunch.

However, we're talking about the gastric-duodenal transit of the pizza she had at (I think) 6.30. What does lunch have to do with it? Or yesterday's dinner, for that matter?

Rolfe.

Ok, but we know two things based on what her friends said. She arrived at their house around 4 and she left around 8:45. Other than that we have ZERO evidence as to when she started eating. She was hanging out with friends having fun, there was no reason for them to take notice of when she started eating.

 

[Matthew Best]

She arrived at their house around 4 and she left around 8:45. Other than that we have ZERO evidence as to when she started eating.

Well, there was this thing called a post mortem, you know. And the testimony of her friends. But, yes, if you ignore all that, ZERO evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

Evidence?

You really need evidence that Meredith ate something before 4pm on November 1, 2007? Really?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hang on a minute. Assuming that recognisable bits of pizza (the first course) were found in the stomach, any time of death beyond about three hours from eating the pizza is fantasy, and even three hours is definitely on the improbable side.

That's what we've been arguing for, for some time. Any time significantly after 9:00pm, as soon as she got home, is incredibly implausible and should have been laughed out of court.

For what it's worth, going by memory, the autopsy found recognisable bits of cheese and vegetable fibres.

Actually, it's not possible to push it back to the earliest it might have been simply on the recollections of the friends, based on what LondonJohn said about the recognisable bits of pizza. To make that compatible with the earliest time of death possible from other evidence, that is a few minutes before nine, I would have to assume that Meredith didn't start tucking into that pizza till maybe 6.30.

I think you're right that she didn't start the pizza quite as early as has been suggested - because if she had, there would have been more digestion even by nine o'clock.

I agree that probability should incline us to believe whatever reasonably plausible story compresses the time between Meredith starting her meal and Meredith being murdered. A 6:30pm start time and 9:00pm time of death is pushing the envelope of credulity as it is.

Before any guilters reading this get too exited, remember that the Naruto file opening absolutely closes off any possibility that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in a murder that happened before 9:30pm at the very, very earliest and that's if you assume they started the cartoon running then bolted out the door immediately for some bizarre reason. If they actually watched the cartoon they can't have gotten to Amanda's house before 9:55pm. That alone makes their involvement incredibly implausible.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, there was this thing called a post mortem, you know. And the testimony of her friends. But, yes, if you ignore all that, ZERO evidence.

Where's the evidence as to what time she started eating? It could have been at 4, it could have been at 7. Bottom line....you don't know.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why is it that you are unable to comprehend that I do understand the difference, and just do not interpret it the same way that you do?

In simpler language ... I disagree with you about this. What is truly incomprehensible is your apparent inability to grasp that.

Now this is a textbook example of a straw man.

Nobody is arguing that you don't disagree. We're just pointing out that you have no rational, defensible basis on which to disagree. Hence pretending that we do not grasp that you disagree is a straw man. The issue is whether your disagreement has any sensible basis, not merely whether you disagree or not.

Your mere disagreement is utterly meaningless.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Where's the evidence as to what time she started eating? It could have been at 4, it could have been at 7. Bottom line....you don't know.

When you have to start making up claims like this, it is time to stop digging!

 

[Alt+F4]

Before any guilters reading this get too exited, remember that the Naruto file opening absolutely closes off any possibility that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in a murder that happened before 9:30pm at the very, very earliest and that's if you assume they started the cartoon running then bolted out the door immediately for some bizarre reason. If they actually watched the cartoon they can't have gotten to Amanda's house before 9:55pm. That alone makes their involvement incredibly implausible.

Kevin, haven't we whacked this mole many times before? There is no evidence that a Naruto file was opened. It's only something mentioned in RS's appeal. There is no evidence of this and so far, nothing regarding this has been accepted by the appeals court. Why keep up with this lie?