Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[katy_did]

I don't think the prosecution did introduce an expert on this facet, they just proposed their theory with the weight of their authority and advanced things like the glass lined on the sill, that they didn't find any glass outside the window, and they didn't see the marks of the wall and so forth to support it.

And of course to criticize the ballistics expert as not being specifically trained in 'stone throwing' as you probably recall. I wonder where one goes to get such esoteric credentials?

ETA: the 'wink' smilie has no meaning, I must have hit that accidentally and don't know how to remove it.

I thought that was the case as I didn't remember any prosecution rock-throwing expert testifying (or even a ballistics expert). Ridiculous that they didn't have to do anything other than state their theory, and weren't required to back it up with any of this superfluous science nonsense. Bongiorno has said that throughout the case, the defence have had to prove the prosecution wrong rather than the other way round, and that seems to be true here.

P.S No worries, I shall consider it a meaningless wink (though if you do want to remove it, I think you just need to change the 'Post Icon' ).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Is it known that the letter wasn't published before Machiavelli translated it? Is it known that Machiavelli translated it? Even if Machiavelli did translate an unpublished letter from Mignini, the possibility exists that Machiavelli just was one of many people that had access to a Mignini press release. Machiavelli is clearly the best source of information about how he got the letter that he translated. Maybe he could just tell us how he received the Italian version of the letter?

There have been several theories put forth in this thread about the nature of Machiavelli. I will admit to being curious about Machiavelli. For quite awhile I had considered Machiavelli the rough equivalent of the people that argue for conspiracy theories in the JREF forum. But his posts here are considerably more sophisticated than those of the average JREF conspiracy theory advocate, and he/she is doing it in their second language.

I have thought about writing a private note to Machiavelli and asking him about who he is and what his connection to the case is. I am curious. But, I don't know why he would be any more likely to provide me an answer than he would this forum. So I'll ask him here: Machiavelli, to the degree you are comfortable with, would you tell us who you are and what is your connection to this case and the public personalities involved with it?

It also seems like some of the people participating in this thread might have specific knowledge about who Machiavelli is. Perhaps there is a reason that they haven't shared the specifics about how they know that, but if it doesn't violate forum rules perhaps they could post what they know about Machiavelli.

If nothing else, is Machiavelli a man? I have assumed that up to now, but perhaps he/she might be willing to confirm that?

He has described himself as an academic with a background in theater, and that seems to fit the style and personality he displays here. He is an educated person, certainly, but he takes a dogmatic stance on everything and simply denies whatever facts impede his views.

I don't think he started with any connection to anyone involved in the case, although he may have established such connections by now. I suspect his interest is mainly driven by his political allegiance. He generally sees the Italian judiciary as a force against corruption and right-wing thuggery. I have a primitive understanding of where he is coming from on this. But his heroes have feet of clay, and in this case, they are simply wrong and refuse to admit it.

If you are old enough to remember the 1980s, and ever had the misfortune to engage in conversation with someone who supported the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, I think the dynamic is roughly similar. However one felt about Reagan's policy, Daniel Ortega made for a piss-poor hero. His admirers could not see that at the time.

 

[Kaosium]

One drink 18 hours later would require so much alcohol she would have been comatose. It is curious that you are so intent to disregard the evidence or at least try to make any argument to negate the finding.

Had she been that drunk she would have needed to be aided in getting home.

Please provide a cite that indicates how much alcohol would have to be in her system at 4:30 am to still have a full drink equivalent at 9 or 10 pm.

From Brown U


Hours since first drink - Subtract this from BAC
1 .015
2 .030
3 .045
4 .060
5 .075
6 .090

linear through 6 hours but do they know?

She would have started drinking at maybe 10 or 11pm

23 hours later she would be killed. At .015 per hour (a low estimate from others I've seen) that would be .345 of processed BAC

These are the lowest numbers I've seen.

My main question is why are you are so adamant that she didn't have a drink at dinner or after? Why is it so important to you?

If she went to sleep with 5 drinks in her that would be a .217 and that would be above 0.20 where this happens Loss of motor control; must have assistance standing or walking; mental confusion; needs medical assistance.


15 hours later she would not have .43g/l left and 15 hours is only 8 pm.

Grinder, what he is saying is that it's not linear as the amount of alcohol diminishes, with a technical explanation for why that is so. Those charts are just rough estimates anyway and include easy constant numbers so people can remember them.

 

[Kaosium]

I thought that was the case as I didn't remember any prosecution rock-throwing expert testifying (or even a ballistics expert). Ridiculous that they didn't have to do anything other than state their theory, and weren't required to back it up with any of this superfluous science nonsense. Bongiorno has said that throughout the case, the defence have had to prove the prosecution wrong rather than the other way round, and that seems to be true here.

Especially when you consider that they also convicted Raffaele and Amanda of the staging, it added something like six months to a year to their sentences, and let Rudy off the hook completely for the burglary. As it was a separate charge you'd think it would have to have been supported by more than that. They never even showed their theory was possible!

P.S No worries, I shall consider it a meaningless wink (though if you do want to remove it, I think you just need to change the 'Post Icon' ).

I must be doing something wrong; when I hit 'edit post' the 'Post Icon' part doesn't come up. Is it somewhere in the buttons at the top when you edit?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

23 hours later she would be killed. At .015 per hour (a low estimate from others I've seen) that would be .345 of processed BAC

1. You appear to be using a model that assumes that the rate of alcohol removal is constant in time, when I specifically told you not to. Did you learn nothing in your kinetics classes at the esteemed U. of O.? I did. BTW I provided a citation to a chemical forensics book a couple of years ago. It should be in continuation 3 or thereabouts.

2. You are ignoring all of my previous citations, which made it clear that the fluids least prone to microbial contamination (and therefore to artificially high alcohol levels) are the vitreous fluid and the bladder. Given that at least one alcohol determination was wildly high, the notion that microbial contamination should at least be considered is on solid ground.

ETA
Suzanne Bell's textbook Forensic Chemistry, 2nd ed. cites Jones A. W. E., "Alcohol" Chapter 5 in Drug Abuse Handbook, CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 2007. I don't have this book, however. What happens is that as the alcohol concentration drops, the kinetics change from zero-order in [alcohol] to first order in [alcohol]. This is exactly what we would predict using a simple model of an enzyme following saturation kinetics as the [alcohol] moves from being well above to well below its Michaelis constant.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, what he is saying is that it's not linear as the amount of alcohol diminishes, with a technical explanation for why that is so. Those charts are just rough estimates anyway and include easy constant numbers so people can remember them.

Thanks. I knew what he was saying and went to the source of all truth: Google.

The first one I found, not the first that backed my thoughts , had what I posted. I have seen other estimates that have a greater amount of alcohol processed per hour.

As I said above I really don't know why anyone would argue that she was so drunk at 5 am that she still would have a full drink in her at 10 pm. I am fascinated that people want that to be the case and that both sides wish to ignore it.

I would like to know how she was able to get home. If she were that drunk what was she like at 5:30 or 6 when they started eating? Did the alcohol slow her digestive system? Really no food in the duodenum always seemed odd because it would have been three hours which is on the long side but if she were drinking or had that much the night before that could account for it.

By own belief is that no one is allowed to delve into the actions and behaviors of St. Meredith which unfortunately needs to be part of the investigation. I think the bad girl good girl thing was mentioned here lately.

If someone actually has a cite that would indicate what she would have to have had in her system at 5 am and still had a full drink at TOD I will read it.

It seems we are only allowed so much skepticism. The early reports have been put aside regarding a date and I think it is more suspicious than Vogt/Mach never being seen together.

ETA - the next site

After alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream it leaves the body in two ways. A total of about ten percent leaves through the breath, perspiration, and urine. The remainder is broken down through the process known as metabolism.

The rate at which alcohol is metabolized is the same for virtually everyone regardless of their height, weight, sex, race or other such characteristics.

Alcohol is metabolized at the rate of .015 of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) every hour. 1 Thus a person with a very high BAC of .15 will have no measurable alcohol in the bloodstream after ten hours (.15 divided by .015 = 10).

18 hours = .027 which is a near death amount.

 

[LondonJohn]

One drink 18 hours later would require so much alcohol she would have been comatose. It is curious that you are so intent to disregard the evidence or at least try to make any argument to negate the finding.

Had she been that drunk she would have needed to be aided in getting home.

Please provide a cite that indicates how much alcohol would have to be in her system at 4:30 am to still have a full drink equivalent at 9 or 10 pm.

From Brown U


Hours since first drink - Subtract this from BAC
1 .015
2 .030
3 .045
4 .060
5 .075
6 .090

linear through 6 hours but do they know?

She would have started drinking at maybe 10 or 11pm

23 hours later she would be killed. At .015 per hour (a low estimate from others I've seen) that would be .345 of processed BAC

These are the lowest numbers I've seen.

My main question is why are you are so adamant that she didn't have a drink at dinner or after? Why is it so important to you?

If she went to sleep with 5 drinks in her that would be a .217 and that would be above 0.20 where this happens Loss of motor control; must have assistance standing or walking; mental confusion; needs medical assistance.


15 hours later she would not have .43g/l left and 15 hours is only 8 pm.

I think you may be confusing two different measurement methods for blood alcohol.

The "standard" way of measuring BAC is in mass percentage terms. So a BAC of 0.3 means that 0.3% of the total blood mass is alcohol.

However, the way in which BAC was presented in the pathology reports for Meredith Kercher was - somewhat strangely - in grams/litre. It's odd on its face since it mixes mass and volume measurements in the ratio, and it also happens to be more or less exactly an order of magnitude 10 times different than the same BAC measured in standard mass percentage terms.

In other words, a BAC of 0.04 (measured in mass percentage terms) is more or less equivalent to a BAC of 0.4 (measured in grams/litre terms). Thus, the "0.43" and "0.2" shown in the Massei report should actually read "0.043" and "0.02" respectively if expressed in mass percentage terms.

For a woman of Meredith's size, 15-20 units of alcohol over around 8 hours between 8pm and 4am on the 31st/1st could give her a BAC of around 0.35 at 4am - which is extremely high, but far from uncommon among habitual binge drinkers. From 4am to 10pm (generous timings) is 18 hours, during which one could expect an initial dissipation of 0.025%/hour for the first 4 hours, then 0.015%/hour thereafter. That works out at around 0.31% total dissipation over the 18 hours. This would therefore put her residual BAC at 10pm at 0.04% - which is exactly in line with the 0.43g/l (=0.043%) autopsy finding.

 

[Grinder]

1. You appear to be using a model that assumes that the rate of alcohol removal is constant in time, when I specifically told you not to. Did you learn nothing in your kinetics classes at the esteemed U. of O.? I did. BTW I provided a citation to a chemical forensics book a couple of years ago. It should be in continuation 3 or thereabouts.

2. You are ignoring all of my previous citations, which made it clear that the fluids least prone to microbial contamination (and therefore to artificially high alcohol levels) are the vitreous fluid and the bladder. Given that at least one alcohol determination was wildly high, the notion that microbial contamination should at least be considered is on solid ground.

ETA
Suzanne Bell's textbook Forensic Chemistry, 2nd ed. cites Jones A. W. E., "Alcohol" Chapter 5 in Drug Abuse Handbook, CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 2007. I don't have this book, however. What happens is that as the alcohol concentration drops, the kinetics change from zero-order in [alcohol] to first order in [alcohol]. This is exactly what we would predict using a simple model of an enzyme following saturation kinetics as the [alcohol] moves from being well above to well below its Michaelis constant.

With all due respect and I mean that sincerely you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Have it out with Dr David J Hansen or the other experts.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would like to know how she was able to get home. If she were that drunk what was she like at 5:30 or 6 when they started eating? Did the alcohol slow her digestive system? Really no food in the duodenum always seemed odd because it would have been three hours which is on the long side but if she were drinking or had that much the night before that could account for it.

Research suggests that alcohol ingestion only inhibits digestive motility if the alcohol is actually present in the digestive system at the time the food is being processed. That's because alcohol has a physiological effect on the lining of the stomach and the small intestine. In other words, it's not being drunk per se that slows down digestive motility, it's the effect of alcohol being physically present in the stomach and small intestine

By contrast, if Meredith's BAC level was the result of drinking the previous night, there would obviously be no alcohol left in her GI system at the time she ate the pizza/crumble meal at around 6-7.30pm on the 1st. It's therefore unlikely that alcohol would have had any retarding effect on the digestion process.

 

[acbytesla]

With all due respect and I mean that sincerely you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Have it out with Dr David J Hansen or the other experts.

WOW!!!! Slapping down Chris on something like this Grinder??? Really??

 

[Grinder]

I think you may be confusing two different measurement methods for blood alcohol.

The "standard" way of measuring BAC is in mass percentage terms. So a BAC of 0.3 means that 0.3% of the total blood mass is alcohol.

However, the way in which BAC was presented in the pathology reports for Meredith Kercher was - somewhat strangely - in grams/litre. It's odd on its face since it mixes mass and volume measurements in the ratio, and it also happens to be more or less exactly an order of magnitude 10 times different than the same BAC measured in standard mass percentage terms.

In other words, a BAC of 0.04 (measured in mass percentage terms) is more or less equivalent to a BAC of 0.4 (measured in grams/litre terms). Thus, the "0.43" and "0.2" shown in the Massei report should actually read "0.043" and "0.02" respectively if expressed in mass percentage terms.

For a woman of Meredith's size, 15-20 units of alcohol over around 8 hours between 8pm and 4am on the 31st/1st could give her a BAC of around 0.35 at 4am - which is extremely high, but far from uncommon among habitual binge drinkers. From 4am to 10pm (generous timings) is 18 hours, during which one could expect an initial dissipation of 0.025%/hour for the first 4 hours, then 0.015%/hour thereafter. That works out at around 0.31% total dissipation over the 18 hours. This would therefore put her residual BAC at 10pm at 0.04% - which is exactly in line with the 0.43g/l (=0.043%) autopsy finding.

The g/l is common as I have found it each time I've been challenged on this.

A BAC of .01% means that there are .01 grams of alcohol per 100 grams of an individual’s blood, or .1 grams of alcohol per 1000 grams of blood. In some countries, BAC is measured in grams per liter of blood (g/L).

Micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath
Usually abbreviated as – µg/L [or µg/l, or µg/1000ml, or µg/1000mL]
This unit of measurement is currently used in, for example, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Botswana.
A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is 350, with the likely range being from 0 to 2,000.

Milligrams of alcohol per litre of breath
Usually abbreviated as – mg/L [or mg/l]
This unit of measurement is currently used in most of Europe, as well as in many other countries; such as South Africa, Taiwan and Japan.
A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is 0.35, with the likely range being from 0.00 to 2.00.

Micrograms of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of breath
Usually abbreviated as – µg/100ml [or µg/100mL, or µg/%]
This unit of measurement is currently used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus and Singapore.
A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is 35, with the likely range being from 0 to 200.

Grams of alcohol per two hundred and ten litres of breath
Usually abbreviated as – g/210L [or g/210l]
This unit of measurement is currently used in the United States and Australia.
A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is .080, with the likely range being from .000 to .600.

CONVERTING FROM BREATH TO BLOOD ALCOHOL UNITS

In some countries it is still the practice to convert the result of a breath alcohol analysis to a blood alcohol concentration. In order to do this use must be made of a blood:breath ratio. There is much dispute and debate on this subject [much of which is now significantly out of date and misinformed], which means that different countries have each adopted their own assumed value of this ratio when preparing this legislation – such as 2,000:1 in France and Scandinavia; 2,100 in the USA, Australia and Korea; and 2,300:1 in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Ireland.

There are also several units of blood alcohol measurement in use around the world:

BLOOD Alcohol Concentration Units
Milligrams of alcohol per one hundred millilitres of blood
Usually abbreviated as – mg/100ml [or mg/100mL, or mg/%]
This unit of measurement is currently used by the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Canada, and by most countries in the Middle East.
A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is 80, with the likely range being from 0 to 500.

Grams of alcohol per one litre of blood, Promille [w/v] Usually abbreviated as – g/L [or ‰ w/v] This system is used throughout much of French-speaking Europe, as well as in Spain and Portugal. A typical format for a measurement result expressed in this unit is 0.80, with the likely range being from 0.00 to 6.00.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks. I knew what he was saying and went to the source of all truth: Google.

The first one I found, not the first that backed my thoughts , had what I posted. I have seen other estimates that have a greater amount of alcohol processed per hour.

As I said above I really don't know why anyone would argue that she was so drunk at 5 am that she still would have a full drink in her at 10 pm. I am fascinated that people want that to be the case and that both sides wish to ignore it.

That's what the balance of evidence suggests. It is known that she went out and drank heavily on Halloween until the wee hours and there's testimony she didn't have anything with the girls and wasn't feeling well the day after. Residual alcohol is a plausible explanation.

I would like to know how she was able to get home. If she were that drunk what was she like at 5:30 or 6 when they started eating? Did the alcohol slow her digestive system? Really no food in the duodenum always seemed odd because it would have been three hours which is on the long side but if she were drinking or had that much the night before that could account for it.

Yes, I suspect the fact she had alcohol in her system contributed to her still having passed nothing to her duodenum ~3 hours later, that's significantly longer than one would expect, ~80 minutes being the average for her type of meal if I recall correctly off the top of my head. There's studies done by a guy from Down Under (for diabetes medicine I think) showing that alcohol will delay the beginning of digestion a little bit, but certainly not enough to account for 5 hours and three hours is still unusual.

By own belief is that no one is allowed to delve into the actions and behaviors of St. Meredith which unfortunately needs to be part of the investigation. I think the bad girl good girl thing was mentioned here lately.

If someone actually has a cite that would indicate what she would have to have had in her system at 5 am and still had a full drink at TOD I will read it.

It seems we are only allowed so much skepticism. The early reports have been put aside regarding a date and I think it is more suspicious than Vogt/Mach never being seen together.

Like you, I've gone back and looked at the very first reports of the case and some of the theories first entertained. One thing I noticed was John Kercher publicly protested the idea that Meredith might have invited her attacker home and shortly thereafter that line of investigation ended.

I have also wondered with JK was taking such an interest in the case and being a journalist if he might have brought to the attention of the police the Kate Mansey article where Raffaele gets his days mixed up (or Mansey misreported what he said--or both) and that's why the police called Raffaele in on the fifth of November....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

this is standard Michaelis-Menten kinetics

With all due respect and I mean that sincerely you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Have it out with Dr David J Hansen or the other experts.

David J Hanson is an emeritus professor of sociology at SUNY Potsdam. Based on his CV, he clearly is an expert in the general area of alcohol consumption. My credentials in biochemistry, particularly in the area of enzyme kinetics, are far stronger. Moreover, I gave you a textbook citation that should have sufficed. However, I'll see if I can turn up the other book I mentioned, and that will take time.

 

[Grinder]

WOW!!!! Slapping down Chris on something like this Grinder??? Really??

Do you bother to read the link first?

I didn't write a Ph D. in the field wrote it.

Btw, the coroners report said that the amount found in her blood was equivalent to one drink - I didn't confuse anything.

I think I have provided the proof from Massei and online articles that aren't suspect and it is time to explain why people are so resistant to this concept. I didn't write Massei. I'm not Vogt or Barbie.

Read the forensics yourselves. There was a bad reading that had her much drunker and that';s why they did the confirming test by a second expert. Why would anyone doubt this when it isn't part of the case like the DNA on the knife or the break-in.

 

[Grinder]

That's what the balance of evidence suggests. It is known that she went out and drank heavily on Halloween until the wee hours and there's testimony she didn't have anything with the girls and wasn't feeling well the day after. Residual alcohol is a plausible explanation.

Yes it could be but all the science I can find would have her so drunk she would be able to walk. Now if she were really drunk and Chris' non-linear theory in contradiction to all I can find is correct, then it is reasonable that she and her friends couldn't remember if Rudy had been there or not. They wouldn't remember if she had talked him or agreed to a meeting.

I don't trust the british girls and think like anybody they may have wanted to be sure Meredith wouldn't be blamed as the victim.

Yes, I suspect the fact she had alcohol in her system contributed to her still having passed nothing to her duodenum ~3 hours later, that's significantly longer than one would expect, ~80 minutes being the average for her type of meal if I recall correctly off the top of my head. There's studies done by a guy from Down Under (for diabetes medicine I think) showing that alcohol will delay the beginning of digestion a little bit, but certainly not enough to account for 5 hours and three hours is still unusual.

Sure.

Like you, I've gone back and looked at the very first reports of the case and some of the theories first entertained. One thing I noticed was John Kercher publicly protested the idea that Meredith might have invited her attacker home and shortly thereafter that line of investigation ended.

I have also wondered with JK was taking such an interest in the case and being a journalist if he might have brought to the attention of the police the Kate Mansey article where Raffaele gets his days mixed up (or Mansey misreported what he said--or both) and that's why the police called Raffaele in on the fifth of November....

Bingo! That's what I've been saying or trying to say. I think that the story changed at least in English when the tabs found out it was JK's child. At first it was their usual party girl killed.

 

[Kaosium]

18 hours = .027 which is a near death amount.

Grinder, this is pointless. .027 is nowhere near death for most people, it's just possible a (typically) light drinker might expire. I have seen people walking and talking at .040 and higher.

Do you remember those little coin-operated breathalyzers they used to have in some bars? You don't see as many anymore as it turned out people liked to use them to see how much they could blow on it....


That would be known as an 'unintended consequence.'

 

[Grinder]

David J Hanson is an emeritus professor of sociology at SUNY Potsdam. Based on his CV, he clearly is an expert in the general area of alcohol consumption. My credentials in biochemistry, particularly in the area of enzyme kinetics, are far stronger. Moreover, I gave you a textbook citation that should have sufficed. However, I'll see if I can turn up the other book I mentioned, and that will take time.

Are you an expert in alcohol processing by the body. Do you think that all these people in the field don't know what they are talking about?

Please tell me why this is so important to you to refute. I didn't make it up. I found it in Massei and thought it important for various reasons. You have always looked for something to refute it and I really don't know why.

People here challenge the PGP to do a timeline - do it for her BAC. Tell me how she got home. Don't you wonder how someone with a .2 made it home and with whom?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the reality of the situation is more complicated than a simple model

Are you an expert in alcohol processing by the body. Do you think that all these people in the field don't know what they are talking about?

Please tell me why this is so important to you to refute. I didn't make it up. I found it in Massei and thought it important for various reasons. You have always looked for something to refute it and I really don't know why.

People here challenge the PGP to do a timeline - do it for her BAC. Tell me how she got home. Don't you wonder how someone with a .2 made it home and with whom?

I could just as easily ask you the same question: why is this so important to you?

I have done a quick perusal of the literature on the kinetics of alcohol elimination, and it is much more complicated than I first appreciated. See this paper for a place to start.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you an expert in alcohol processing by the body. Do you think that all these people in the field don't know what they are talking about?

Please tell me why this is so important to you to refute. I didn't make it up. I found it in Massei and thought it important for various reasons. You have always looked for something to refute it and I really don't know why.

People here challenge the PGP to do a timeline - do it for her BAC. Tell me how she got home. Don't you wonder how someone with a .2 made it home and with whom?

It's not as simple and as linear as people believe and it takes longer than you would think to clear alcohol from your system. I found this chart helpful in a post a year or so back.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26847&d=1350899835

 

[Mary_H]

People here challenge the PGP to do a timeline - do it for her BAC. Tell me how she got home. Don't you wonder how someone with a .2 made it home and with whom?

You need to clarify whether you are talking about .2 or .02. You have used both figures in different posts. .02 makes more sense, given that .08 is the standard for driving drunk.

Speaking from personal Halloween Party experience in my 20's, it does take more than one day to recover, so I agree that .02 is more than possible.