Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

matches

Does the occurrence of a CE run on a given date, e.g., November 13, imply that there must be an e-gram, whether stored electronically or in hard copy, for that date? Is it possible to state that the test results in a "match" without having read/reviewed an e-gram?

Diocletus,

I am not an expert in the actual instruments, but I would say that there should be an electronic file, which could give rise to a hard copy unless it were erased. I can see a number of pitfalls to declaring a match without reviewing the egrams themselves but instead relying on tables of the data perhaps. One could not do it for a mixture, unless I am missing something. Even just having the paper versions of the egrams is insufficient, as I have often pointed out.

 

[komponisto]

It won't be normal because the left side of the curve is constrained.

Well, presumably that's also true of T_lag for liquids, but the authors of the study regarded that quantity as being successfully modeled by a normal distribution, unlike its counterpart for solid meals.

However, I don't see any reason to suppose the deviation happens in such a way to transfer significant amounts of probability mass as far to the right as 240 minutes.

 

[LondonJohn]

It won't be normal because the left side of the curve is constrained. But you're right, you can still do the sums.

Rolfe.

Exactly. It's not strictly a normal curve, because (as you say) the left side of the curve is slightly squashed owing to the somewhat obvious reason that t=0 is an unmovable left-hand backstop. But the curve can correctly be described as a classic bell curve, merely one which is not symmetrical about the median.

And when I did the extrapolation calculations, I was deliberately erring heavily on the side of caution, in order to avoid partisan accusations of "pushing the numbers". I think that komponisto's numbers are actually closer to a more rigorous extrapolation using statistical tables. As he points out, the higher accuracy makes it even more likely that Meredith died well before 10pm - and most probably between 9pm and 9.30pm. But I'd counter that by observing that the narrow tail of a bell curve becomes less and less precise, and subject to increasing margins of error. That is the main reason why I erred heavily on the side of caution in the numbers I used.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, presumably that's also true of T_lag for liquids, but the authors of the study regarded that quantity as being successfully modeled by a normal distribution, unlike its counterpart for solid meals.

However, I don't see any reason to suppose the deviation happens in such a way to transfer significant amounts of probability mass as far to the right as 240 minutes.

It would depend. If the extreme right of the curve doesn't go further out than the zero to the left, then it wouldn't be constrained, at least theoretically.

But that's academic. Your argument is sound. You'd think it would have been lucky for Knoz and Sollecito that Meredith's meal was a bit longer than usual in moving on. Because if it had already started to move on before she died, it would be impossible to pinpoint the time of death as clearly as it can in fact be pinpointed. It was their bad luck nobody really seems to have grasped this.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, presumably that's also true of T_lag for liquids, but the authors of the study regarded that quantity as being successfully modeled by a normal distribution, unlike its counterpart for solid meals.

However, I don't see any reason to suppose the deviation happens in such a way to transfer significant amounts of probability mass as far to the right as 240 minutes.

No, you're correct. The distribution curve for T(lag) follows a classical bell curve pattern (I've seen the data points in the report). The only reason why it can't be referenced as a normal curve with the usual information of the mean and variance is that it's not symmetrical. The left side of the curve (i.e. to the left of the median) is slightly squashed horizontally in relation to the right side. That's why the authors give the median and the 25th/75th percentile points. But provided one treats each half of the curve separately, one can accurately extrapolate each half according to the given data points of the median and the 25th/75th percentile points.

In short, your extrapolation analysis is accurate and valid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Notebook

komponisto,

One of you at lesswrong wanted to move the start of the meal toward 7 PM, IIUC. They had the meal, then watched "The Notebook," which has a run time of 120-123 minutes, or so. I think they stopped the film to eat desert, yet Meredith was on her way home between 8:30 and 9. Therefore, I don't think one can have a start time of the meal later than about 6:30.
EDT
They might have also looked at some photos when they stopped the film, but my memory is hazy.

 

[LondonJohn]

It would depend. If the extreme right of the curve doesn't go further out than the zero to the left, then it wouldn't be constrained, at least theoretically.

But that's academic. Your argument is sound. You'd think it would have been lucky for Knoz and Sollecito that Meredith's meal was a bit longer than usual in moving on. Because if it had already started to move on before she died, it would be impossible to pinpoint the time of death as clearly as it can in fact be pinpointed. It was there bad luck nobody really seems to have grasped this.

Rolfe.

But conversely it will likely be their good luck in the appeal trial. It's a shame that the defence teams in the first trial didn't understand the significance of the specific conditions that allow us to estimate ToD with unusually high accuracy in this particular instance*. And it's also more than a shame (it's a travesty, in my opinion) that Massei allowed Mignini to pull the stunt of changing the prosecution ToD in his closing argument - giving the defence insufficient opportunity to examine and rebut this argument.

However, I think it's highly likely that the defence teams are now pretty conversant with this issue (as evidence by the appeal submissions), and that they will mount a successful argument on ToD in Hellmann's court. So things will - I hope - turn out right in the end. It's just a huge shame that it's taken so long to get there.

* Those specific conditions are the following: 1) we know with a fair degree of confidence what time the pizza meal started; 2) we know with high confidence that none of the pizza meal (or the apple crumble dessert) had yet passed through to her duodenum by the time of her death; 3) we know with a high degree of confidence that Meredith was still alive just before 9pm.

 

[theRealBob]

Isn't it more likely that the killer (i.e. Guede) tipped these items - including the book - out of her bag onto the bed as he was searching for the keys he needed and items of value after the murder? For me, the most persuasive argument for this scenario is that the items are lying on the mattress. Had Meredith removed the items on arriving home, the duvet would have been lying in its normal position on top of the mattress, and the items would have been placed onto the duvet. Of course the items could originally have been lying on top of the duvet, but were tipped onto the mattress when the killer (Guede) pulled the duvet off the bed to cover Meredith. But I still favour the theory that the items were tipped out of the bag by the killer.

I think that the sequence of events probably went like this: Guede killed and molested Meredith; he then cleaned the blood off himself and his clothing in the small bathroom (leaving the dilute blood partial print on the bathmat in the process); he then returned to Meredith's room; he covered Meredith's body by pulling the duvet off her bed and placing it over her on the floor; he then tipped her tote bag's contents out onto the now-exposed mattress in his search for money, cards and the keys that he needed to get out of the friont door; he exited Meredith's room again, stepping into some of the pooling blood as he walked from the bed to the bedroom door; he locked the bedroom door behind him, using the keys that he'd just found, and walked down the hallway to the front door - leaving a faint trail of bloody shoeprints as he did so; finally, he unlocked the front door and left the cottage, neglecting to lock the door behind him.

I think this is a good estimate of what happened (except for missing the sequence where Raff and the she-devil Amanda ring their own doorbell, enter their own flat, kill Meredith then insert pizza in her duodenum, bash Rudy when he appears from the toilet, then run out again)...

 

[theRealBob]

Not to mention all the lies you pointed out and misinterpretations. It's gross and so wrong. Kermit should be banned from any kind of activity regarding this case. What's even worse, the PMF site(S) and TJMK site are enjoying this kind of presenting the case. I always thought they want justice for Meredith Kercher.

The thing is, all they care about is to go after Amanda Knox. They don't care about Meredith.

Gee. that's a surprise...

I have previously mentioned a comment that someone wisely posted about the Perugian Murderer's Friends webite...

'Just hate. hate, hate, and hate. Hate that b****. 'cos that's all there is'....

At times I wonder why PMF and True Justice For My Website don't get together and do a post in homage to 'Saint Rudy of the Hallowed Bedsit Where I Can't Pay The Rent '

They love him over there. It's just the other two they hate.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

four lost years

And the four years lost for Amanda, Raffaele and their families. Will that ever be recovered? Unlikely.

In ten years, they may have forgotten this dreadful experience and move on.

I hope so.

Justinian2,

This is a good question. It is one of the reasons why the level of false convictions should be kept as low as possible.

 

[theRealBob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist

Joyce Gilchrist of the Oklahoma forensic lab, like Patrizia Stefanoni of Italy, framed people. Joyce was canned and Oklahoma was sued for many millions.

People of Oklahoma have already been through this.

Yes. but Steff just dragged a statement from some old guy in the Rome office into court, that said 'our staff get trained right, and noone's ever complained before.'

He's neglecting the obvious fact that while unlikely to be a one off, Steff is being proved to have exhibited a level of dishonesty that far exceeds other DNA technicians work in previous trials. (and from statements I've read on other cases from ex-cops about the routine manipulation of evidence there's no chance she's the only one, but Hellman's much-needed independent review of her work is getting her in serious trouble)

It's not shoddy work by her lab either in spite of what we see on her dopey video.

She's being caught. She commits serious frauds to suit the purposes of those around her. It's obvious. That's it.

 

[komponisto]

No, you're correct. The distribution curve for T(lag) follows a classical bell curve pattern (I've seen the data points in the report). The only reason why it can't be referenced as a normal curve with the usual information of the mean and variance is that it's not symmetrical. The left side of the curve (i.e. to the left of the median) is slightly squashed horizontally in relation to the right side. That's why the authors give the median and the 25th/75th percentile points. But provided one treats each half of the curve separately, one can accurately extrapolate each half according to the given data points of the median and the 25th/75th percentile points.

In short, your extrapolation analysis is accurate and valid.

Ah, okay, so you've seen the actual data. Great -- that confirms what I suspected.

 

[theRealBob]

komponisto and Rolfe,

I saw that. It seemed to me that Rolf Nelson might have been mislead by the question of when a stomach is completely empty, rather than the time it begins emptying, but maybe the two of you are past that point. How long does it take for a stomach to empty once it starts?

Ask Mignini and take any answer that doesn't fit what he tells the court..

 

[LondonJohn]

Someone should quietly inform Dr Kenneth Ryan (a criminologist at Cal State University) that he's written an article (on the Discovery Channel website) whose entire point is to point out the differences between the US and Italian criminal justice systems, but yet he's actually ignorant and misinformed in his very depiction of the Italian system!

Firstly, he makes the blanket bald assertion that the fundamental difference between the US and Italy is that the US has an adversarial system, whereas Italy has an inquisitorial one. BZZZZZZ! Wrong, Dr Ryan! Italy actually currently has a hybrid system, which retains elements of an inquisitorial approach, but which has introduced a large number of key elements of an adversarial system.

So, the good doctor marches on in his ignorance. His next mistake is to claim that Knox was "expected to cooperate with the investigative trial process". This is total crap. Defendants in Italian criminal trials are absolutely not expected to cooperate - they don't even have to take an oath on the stand in court, since it's assumed that they may well lie!

And the learned doctor isn't finished yet! In a comment he has posted below his article (part of which appears to uncritically accept Ergon's ludicrous claim that the comments section is being swamped by PR-paid minions), he actually states the following: "Quickly, criminal defendants charged in Italy must have their cases adjudicated in Italy based on Italian law. What that means is that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply...". Clearly, this idiot doesn't even know that "innocent until proven guilty" has been officially enshrined in Italian criminal justice codes for over a decade now.

This "doctor" is a disgrace to his position and the academic institution he represents. He's written an article that specifically focusses on the differences between Italy and the US, yet he makes numerous massive (and basic) errors when describing the Italian model. In addition, he's got numerous facts related to the case wrong (notably his statement that Guede pleaded guilty to the murder). All in all, it's a laughably bad article, written by someone who ought to be ashamed of himself.

http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal...acticing-us-law-in-italy.html#comment-captcha

 

[komponisto]

komponisto,

One of you at lesswrong wanted to move the start of the meal toward 7 PM, IIUC. They had the meal, then watched "The Notebook," which has a run time of 120-123 minutes, or so. I think they stopped the film to eat desert, yet Meredith was on her way home between 8:30 and 9. Therefore, I don't think one can have a start time of the meal later than about 6:30.
EDT
They might have also looked at some photos when they stopped the film, but my memory is hazy.

I'm not particularly trusting of people's memories, so -- especially in light of the stomach evidence -- I would assign significant probability to the hypothesis of their having misremembered details such as whether they had finished eating before they started watching the film. Perhaps some of them did, but Meredith started later or took longer. According to the relevant section of Massei-Cristiani, at least one of those present (Sophie Purton) gave an end time for the meal of "perhaps an hour before leaving", i.e. 7:45 pm.

 

[theRealBob]

Thanks for the info. So it does sound like a number of different items could be tested on the same day.

It says in the fable Maseei typed up after his personal attempt at a trial, that there were hundreds of items tested from Raff's and Amanda's places. From memory over three hundred but I do make mistakes in some posts and could be slightly wrong.

Whether any other testing was done in non-related cases in the six days prior to R & A's tests is totally irrelevant. It has no affect on anything. The testing of the bra-clasp and knife among other items relating to this murder case can...produce meaning.

Just ask Steff....

She had the DNA profiles in her hot little hand.

 

[Poppy1016]

I was curious about when the body temperature was taken. What are the general rules and guidelines regarding this issue. Is it being challenged in the appeal that the taking of the body temperature was delayed for a long period of time, another error as I understand it.

 

[Justinian2]

Yes. but Steff just dragged a statement from some old guy in the Rome office into court, that said 'our staff get trained right, and noone's ever complained before.'

He's neglecting the obvious fact that while unlikely to be a one off, Steff is being proved to have exhibited a level of dishonesty that far exceeds other DNA technicians work in previous trials. (and from statements I've read on other cases from ex-cops about the routine manipulation of evidence there's no chance she's the only one, but Hellman's much-needed independent review of her work is getting her in serious trouble)

It's not shoddy work by her lab either in spite of what we see on her dopey video.

She's being caught. She commits serious frauds to suit the purposes of those around her. It's obvious. That's it.

A flashbulb (remember those) just went off in me old head! Some have asked why they didn't test a knife in the flat she shared with Meredith since there were so many there. Why did they go to Raffaele's pad and test the first and only knife they found?

Simple! Amanda's DNA on the knives meant nothing since Amanda lived at both places and used the knives at both places. It would have been extremely incriminating, however, if a knife was found at Raffaele's place with copious amounts of Meredith's DNA and blood. The implication then would have been that the murder weapon had been found and that it must have been brought there by Amanda or Raffaele. If the knife had been found at Amanda’s flat, it would have implicated nobody since Guede had been there. It would have been Guede’s murder knife. Amanda’s DNA would have meant NOTHING since she could have, at any time, have used the knife to slice bread or potatoes. The false murder weapon, the planted evidence HAD - REPEAT - HAD to be found at Raffaele’s place.

Patrizia Stefanoni knew her dirty lab would show a false positive. Anything she tested there would have shown trace amounts of Meredith’s DNA. It’s HIGHLY probable that Patrizia Stefanoni knowingly and deliberately helped falsify evidence to frame Amanda and Raffaele. Anybody smart enough to know that the false murder weapon, the planted evidence HAD REPEAT HAD to be found at Raffaele’s place would have been smart enough to have known that her lab would have produced a false negative.
QED Patrizia Stefanoni is guilty!

 

[AmyStrange]

That makes sense Justinian2

A flashbulb (remember those) just went off in me old head! Some have asked why they didn't test a knife in the flat she shared with Meredith since there were so many there. Why did they go to Raffaele's pad and test the first and only knife they found?

Simple! Amanda's DNA on the knives meant nothing since Amanda lived at both places and used the knives at both places. It would have been extremely incriminating, however, if a knife was found at Raffaele's place with copious amounts of Meredith's DNA and blood. The implication then would have been that the murder weapon had been found and that it must have been brought there by Amanda or Raffaele. If the knife had been found at Amanda’s flat, it would have implicated nobody since Guede had been there. It would have been Guede’s murder knife. Amanda’s DNA would have meant NOTHING since she could have, at any time, have used the knife to slice bread or potatoes. The false murder weapon, the planted evidence HAD - REPEAT - HAD to be found at Raffaele’s place.

Patrizia Stefanoni knew her dirty lab would show a false positive. Anything she tested there would have shown trace amounts of Meredith’s DNA. It’s HIGHLY probable that Patrizia Stefanoni knowingly and deliberately helped falsify evidence to frame Amanda and Raffaele. Anybody smart enough to know that the false murder weapon, the planted evidence HAD REPEAT HAD to be found at Raffaele’s place would have been smart enough to have known that her lab would have produced a false negative.
QED Patrizia Stefanoni is guilty!

-

WOW! That is just so logical, and scary too that people can be THAT evil.

And some people dare call Amanda a sociopath...

Dave

-

 

[AmyStrange]

Correcting myself

WOW! That is just so logical, and scary too that people can be THAT evil.

-

although it IS scary that people can be that evil, it's even SCARIER when it is someone in authority,

Dave

-