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

[Grinder]

I've built houses for the last 20+ years (albeit in the US) and I'd be real surprised if those weren't a pair of doors but who knows since every country has unique construction details.

PS.. regardless of what they are, they were covered by shutters (I assume at that time). Were these not what you were referring to in your post?

Yes they were. It clearly looks like they are shutters but how exactly do they work? The other side of door is the little hallway next to Meredith's room and the doors would have to open in. The wall that can't be seen from the photo has a window next to the nook in the kitchen. Is that window barred?

 

[yimyammer]

Hummm, I see. OK, well nothing in Grinders link confirms that the lawyer did not get the computer or that the police still have it.

This is old data and I am not great at archives. I know someone who could have this in a flash...do you know Hans?

Lets try logically to explain Guedes visit to the hallway of the Perugia law office. Why does he happen to show up there? Thirsty? Sudden need to use a bathroom? Or what else possibly would get him in there? Hummm

Good points and I'm inclined to draw the same conclusion that this is what he was doing if he wasn't there to return the laptop, although I think its weird that he would make a trip to the law office merely to apologize. For what? Would you apologize to someone for unknowingly buying their stolen merchandise?

Perhaps I incorrectly inferred from Grinders quote that Rudy was returning the laptop and if so, I wouldn't think he would need to apologize since all he claims he did was buy it from someone (I obviously don't believe this story) and an apology would imply he was guilty of something more than buying stolen merchandise (which I think he was, so perhaps the apology was a slip-up driven by his guilty conscious).

 

[yimyammer]

I can't help but wonder if Meredith came into the cottage and then for safety sake locked the door behind her with the key locking Rudy into the house. Meredith then heads back to her bedroom. Rudy then comes out of the bathroom and might have left out the front door, but because Meredith locked it, his only choice is to go out through Filomena's window and exiting through the window is actually scarier than climbing through it. So he ends up confronting Meredith in her bedroom.

Funny, I wrote almost the exact same scenario, I swear I didn't read your post before I posted mine.

 

[Grinder]

You're correct in your assertion that post-mortem blood alcohol measurement is fraught with inaccuracies. As you say, it's mainly due to two factors: firstly, blood is static and pooling within the body and is no longer being oxygenated, so it is degenerating and decomposing in a different ways in different parts of the body; and secondly, when blood decomposes, blood glucose converts into acetaldehyde and then alcohol. This decomposition can start within several hours of death; Meredith's autopsy was not performed until at least 30 hours after her death.

Here's a link to an abstract that addresses the problems of inaccuracy in post-mortem BAC readings:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500652/

And here's a much more detailed paper on the subject:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36390/Measured_alcohol_lev.pdf

There are legal and social issues associated with a pilot’s use of ethanol. Civil Aviation
Safety Authority (CASA) regulations state that pilots may only fly eight hours or more after
ingesting alcohol.11 The “eight hour bottle-to-throttle” rule is designed to prevent a pilot taking to the air when affected by previous ethanol ingestion or still having ethanol in the blood following a heavy bout of drinking.

It is known that micro-organisms involved in the process of putrefaction after death can
produce alcohol, usually a mixture of ethanol and other volatile substances. This process
occurs when a body is not refrigerated soon after death and is hastened by environmental
conditions such as high temperatures and when the body has been traumatised.

In this case they are talking about airplane crash trauma.

Aviation Accident Investigation
1. Recovery of bodies and despatch to mortuary/refrigerated facility as soon as
practicable.
2. If long delay anticipated, protect bodies eg tarpaulin-type cover +/- insecticide or
netting. Ensure airflow around bodies is maintained.
3. No advantage in taking biological specimens at accident scene unless very long delayanticipated. If, in consultation with forensic pathologist, decision is made to take
specimens, this should be done by trained personnel (eg forensic pathologist or
mortuary technician).
4. In situation 3. above, most useful specimens are femoral vein blood and vitreous.
5. Specimens should be collected under controlled conditions (as set out in laboratory
procedure manuals) with appropriate preservatives and refrigeration of samples.
6. At autopsy, the more specimens taken, the greater the potential for useful information.
Femoral blood, vitreous and urine should always be taken where possible. Additional
specimens such as gastric contents, liver, skeletal muscle should also be taken for
storage and future analysis if required.
7. If putrefaction is pronounced, microbiological studies on specimens may be performed
to assess their suitability for analysis.
8. The presence of volatile compounds in specimens should be reported or drawn to the
forensic pathologist’s attention.
9. The forensic pathologist needs to be aware of relevant information including estimated
time of accident, duration of exposure to, and type of, environmental conditions.
10. If the above is followed, the likelihood of valid interpretation of analytical results is high, however, there will be cases where no suitable samples are obtained.
Interpretation in these cases is at best, speculative.


This is a study/paper specific to airplane crashes. The pilot is the subject and in fatal crashes is often severely injured. The body also may take well over the 27 hours in our case to be found and examined.

This paper does not apply to our situation.

The fact is that the coroner that did the work on Meredith said there was alcohol and a second expert using a second method agreed with him. This is the same coroner that said there was nothing in the duodenum. Do you doubt that as well?

She wasn't in a warm much less hot environment and she was covered. She didn't have the type of trauma suffered by a pilot in a fatal crash.

 

[yimyammer]

So . . . are we talking about mushroom-shaped mucus, or about an actual piece of a single mushroom?

Lol, this case! How often would we have a case where we need to distinguish between two items that have the exact same name but completely different meanings?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There are legal and social issues associated with a pilot’s use of ethanol. Civil Aviation
Safety Authority (CASA) regulations state that pilots may only fly eight hours or more after
ingesting alcohol.11 The “eight hour bottle-to-throttle” rule is designed to prevent a pilot taking to the air when affected by previous ethanol ingestion or still having ethanol in the blood following a heavy bout of drinking.

It is known that micro-organisms involved in the process of putrefaction after death can
produce alcohol, usually a mixture of ethanol and other volatile substances. This process
occurs when a body is not refrigerated soon after death and is hastened by environmental
conditions such as high temperatures and when the body has been traumatised.

In this case they are talking about airplane crash trauma.

Aviation Accident Investigation
1. Recovery of bodies and despatch to mortuary/refrigerated facility as soon as
practicable.
2. If long delay anticipated, protect bodies eg tarpaulin-type cover +/- insecticide or
netting. Ensure airflow around bodies is maintained.
3. No advantage in taking biological specimens at accident scene unless very long delayanticipated. If, in consultation with forensic pathologist, decision is made to take
specimens, this should be done by trained personnel (eg forensic pathologist or
mortuary technician).
4. In situation 3. above, most useful specimens are femoral vein blood and vitreous.
5. Specimens should be collected under controlled conditions (as set out in laboratory
procedure manuals) with appropriate preservatives and refrigeration of samples.
6. At autopsy, the more specimens taken, the greater the potential for useful information.
Femoral blood, vitreous and urine should always be taken where possible. Additional
specimens such as gastric contents, liver, skeletal muscle should also be taken for
storage and future analysis if required.
7. If putrefaction is pronounced, microbiological studies on specimens may be performed
to assess their suitability for analysis.
8. The presence of volatile compounds in specimens should be reported or drawn to the
forensic pathologist’s attention.
9. The forensic pathologist needs to be aware of relevant information including estimated
time of accident, duration of exposure to, and type of, environmental conditions.
10. If the above is followed, the likelihood of valid interpretation of analytical results is high, however, there will be cases where no suitable samples are obtained.
Interpretation in these cases is at best, speculative.


This is a study/paper specific to airplane crashes. The pilot is the subject and in fatal crashes is often severely injured. The body also may take well over the 27 hours in our case to be found and examined.

This paper does not apply to our situation.

The fact is that the coroner that did the work on Meredith said there was alcohol and a second expert using a second method agreed with him. This is the same coroner that said there was nothing in the duodenum. Do you doubt that as well?

She wasn't in a warm much less hot environment and she was covered. She didn't have the type of trauma suffered by a pilot in a fatal crash.

How much do you really know about this?

 

[kwill]

I can't help but wonder if Meredith came into the cottage and then for safety sake locked the door behind her with the key locking Rudy into the house.

Of course she locked the door with her key after she came in. The door latch wasn't functional in such a way that the door wouldn't stay closed unless the lock was turned with the key. It was November and cold.

That's also why the door was open when Amanda arrived in the morning to get a shower -- because Rudy was in a hurry to get away from the cottage after he killed Meredith, and he didn't stand in the doorway where he could be seen and lock the door behind himself. The latch didn't work.

 

[yimyammer]

Yes they were. It clearly looks like they are shutters but how exactly do they work? The other side of door is the little hallway next to Meredith's room and the doors would have to open in. The wall that can't be seen from the photo has a window next to the nook in the kitchen. Is that window barred?

Typically interior doors open to the inside (fire safety code so they can be opened inward in a scenario where exterior debris could be blocking the door making it impossible to open from the inside and exit). Exterior shutters on doors are not typical in the US in my experience, but screen doors are and they have to open outward in spite of the fire code. Exterior screen doors are lockable from the inside so I assume the shutters would be as well. If the doors were fixed & used as windows, like they sometimes are in the US, you wouldn't expect to find shutters or screens since they do not operate.

Whatever the case, it appears they would at least be an obstacle for an intruder to have to deal with if they were to choose that location as a point of entry.

I initially thought the little window you referenced had bars which would have made Filomena's window the only window on the upstairs flat that didn't have bars which would make Filomena's window that much more of a logical point of entry. However, I have been told that this window did not have bars but I haven't seen any clear photos from that date that confirms this assertion.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are legal and social issues associated with a pilot’s use of ethanol. Civil Aviation
Safety Authority (CASA) regulations state that pilots may only fly eight hours or more after
ingesting alcohol.11 The “eight hour bottle-to-throttle” rule is designed to prevent a pilot taking to the air when affected by previous ethanol ingestion or still having ethanol in the blood following a heavy bout of drinking.

It is known that micro-organisms involved in the process of putrefaction after death can
produce alcohol, usually a mixture of ethanol and other volatile substances. This process
occurs when a body is not refrigerated soon after death and is hastened by environmental
conditions such as high temperatures and when the body has been traumatised.

In this case they are talking about airplane crash trauma.

Aviation Accident Investigation
1. Recovery of bodies and despatch to mortuary/refrigerated facility as soon as
practicable.
2. If long delay anticipated, protect bodies eg tarpaulin-type cover +/- insecticide or
netting. Ensure airflow around bodies is maintained.
3. No advantage in taking biological specimens at accident scene unless very long delayanticipated. If, in consultation with forensic pathologist, decision is made to take
specimens, this should be done by trained personnel (eg forensic pathologist or
mortuary technician).
4. In situation 3. above, most useful specimens are femoral vein blood and vitreous.
5. Specimens should be collected under controlled conditions (as set out in laboratory
procedure manuals) with appropriate preservatives and refrigeration of samples.
6. At autopsy, the more specimens taken, the greater the potential for useful information.
Femoral blood, vitreous and urine should always be taken where possible. Additional
specimens such as gastric contents, liver, skeletal muscle should also be taken for
storage and future analysis if required.
7. If putrefaction is pronounced, microbiological studies on specimens may be performed
to assess their suitability for analysis.
8. The presence of volatile compounds in specimens should be reported or drawn to the
forensic pathologist’s attention.
9. The forensic pathologist needs to be aware of relevant information including estimated
time of accident, duration of exposure to, and type of, environmental conditions.
10. If the above is followed, the likelihood of valid interpretation of analytical results is high, however, there will be cases where no suitable samples are obtained.
Interpretation in these cases is at best, speculative.


This is a study/paper specific to airplane crashes. The pilot is the subject and in fatal crashes is often severely injured. The body also may take well over the 27 hours in our case to be found and examined.

This paper does not apply to our situation.

The fact is that the coroner that did the work on Meredith said there was alcohol and a second expert using a second method agreed with him. This is the same coroner that said there was nothing in the duodenum. Do you doubt that as well?

She wasn't in a warm much less hot environment and she was covered. She didn't have the type of trauma suffered by a pilot in a fatal crash.

*sigh*

The links were not meant to be directly comparable to our situation, but rather were meant to illustrate the point that post-mortem BAC measurement can be a significantly difficult and inaccurate endeavour.

The underlying theory in that ATSB report is, however, directly applicable to our situation - even if the circumstances to which that theory is applied in the ATSB paper are (of course) different. Meredith Kercher was not an airline pilot killed in an aircraft accident. I will give you that one

Perhaps a strange thing about your post was that you actually included a point of direct relevance from its summary (which you chose not to highlight):

It is known that micro-organisms involved in the process of putrefaction after death can produce alcohol, usually a mixture of ethanol and other volatile substances. This process occurs when a body is not refrigerated soon after death and is hastened by environmental conditions such as high temperatures and when the body has been traumatised.

The paper goes on to describe the biology and chemistry of this process. It's directly applicable to Meredith Kercher's situation. Note that severe trauma and high ambient temperatures "hasten" the process, but that the process occurs even in the absence of those factors.

I had thought that my post had adequately served to illustrate an underlying point of principle: that is to say, if one is measuring BAC in a dead person, there are specific known factors that may throw the measured result significantly from a "true" result (i.e. one that might have been taken from the same person when alive, moments before their death). I hadn't realised that the struggle for clarity on this issue would be even more taxing and painful than having to endure England's current mauling at the hands of the Aussies in the Ashes test match..............

 

[Supernaut]

How much do you really know about this?

Grinder is an ekspurt.

 

[Grinder]

How much do you really know about this?

I hope nothing I wrote gave the impression that I am an expert in the field. I notice that you don't challenge others that don't seem to be trained experts if they agree with your POV.

I read the abstract and read parts of the paper on examining pilots killed in plane crashes. The latter is very specific to that type of situation and not to general blood alcohol work. They point out that a lot rides on whether the pilot was in an altered state or not, including liability and law suits.

The eight hour number is interesting as the length of time needed to sober up.

What training do you have to make you an expert?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder is an ekspurt.

I think you owe me an apology for implying that I said the stomach should have been empty when in fact I said that there should have been something in the duodenum by then.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I hope nothing I wrote gave the impression that I am an expert in the field. I notice that you don't challenge others that don't seem to be trained experts if they agree with your POV.

I read the abstract and read parts of the paper on examining pilots killed in plane crashes. The latter is very specific to that type of situation and not to general blood alcohol work. They point out that a lot rides on whether the pilot was in an altered state or not, including liability and law suits.

The eight hour number is interesting as the length of time needed to sober up.

What training do you have to make you an expert?

What I know, from following criminal cases, is that post-mortem blood alcohol tests are not always precise, and the baseline result for someone who has not been drinking is not necessarily zero.

But I don't understand the lab techniques or technical issues involved, at all. Do you?

The pathologist reported a BAC. I don't dispute the finding, but I am not willing to draw any conclusions from it. Did he? Did he say this proved Meredith had been drinking before she was killed?

 

[LondonJohn]

Typically interior doors open to the inside (fire safety code so they can be opened inward in a scenario where exterior debris could be blocking the door making it impossible to open from the inside and exit). Exterior shutters on doors are not typical in the US in my experience, but screen doors are and they have to open outward in spite of the fire code. Exterior screen doors are lockable from the inside so I assume the shutters would be as well. If the doors were fixed & used as windows, like they sometimes are in the US, you wouldn't expect to find shutters or screens since they do not operate.

Whatever the case, it appears they would at least be an obstacle for an intruder to have to deal with if they were to choose that location as a point of entry.

I initially thought the little window you referenced had bars which would have made Filomena's window the only window on the upstairs flat that didn't have bars which would make Filomena's window that much more of a logical point of entry. However, I have been told that this window did not have bars but I haven't seen any clear photos from that date that confirms this assertion.

The balcony french doors opened inwards, with exterior shutters that opened outwards:





The small window accessible from the balcony also opened inwards, and it had no bars (it's the window at the top of this photo):




However, both the french door and the small window were modern replacement units. Both were double-glazed with modern uPVC frames and sturdy catches with locks. Therefore, they would have been intrinsically far, far harder to break open than Filomena's window, which was an old, low-quality wooden-framed unit with a very thin single-glazed pane.

I have suggested before that it's even possible that Guede might have climbed up to the balcony and tried the french door and the window, but found them beyond his capability to break open. I also wonder whether the police goons might have left the small window either pushed shut and unfastened or even physically ajar. After all, if that small window had been closed and locked, it would have been very difficult indeed for the burglars who subsequently used that window as their point of ingress to force it open without specialist tools and a good degree of effort.

 

[yimyammer]

I think you owe me an apology for implying that I said the stomach should have been empty when in fact I said that there should have been something in the duodenum by then.

your sensitivity strikes me as rather Italian-esque

 

[yimyammer]

The balcony french doors opened inwards, with exterior shutters that opened outwards:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752a3d7888be39.jpg[/qimg]



The small window accessible from the balcony also opened inwards, and it had no bars (it's the window at the top of this photo):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752a3d7da3678b.jpg[/qimg]


However, both the french door and the small window were modern replacement units. Both were double-glazed with modern uPVC frames and sturdy catches with locks. Therefore, they would have been intrinsically far, far harder to break open than Filomena's window, which was an old, low-quality wooden-framed unit with a very thin single-glazed pane.

I have suggested before that it's even possible that Guede might have climbed up to the balcony and tried the french door and the window, but found them beyond his capability to break open. I also wonder whether the police goons might have left the small window either pushed shut and unfastened or even physically ajar. After all, if that small window had been closed and locked, it would have been very difficult indeed for the burglars who subsequently used that window as their point of ingress to force it open without specialist tools and a good degree of effort.

Ty LJ!

 

[Grinder]

*sigh*

The links were not meant to be directly comparable to our situation, but rather were meant to illustrate the point that post-mortem BAC measurement can be a significantly difficult and inaccurate endeavour.

That's not what they say. I think you count on people not reading links after long posts they are contained in.

The underlying theory in that ATSB report is, however, directly applicable to our situation - even if the circumstances to which that theory is applied in the ATSB paper are (of course) different. Meredith Kercher was not an airline pilot killed in an aircraft accident. I will give you that one

The generosity is overwhelming. Not even close. Pilots may not be located for days and the coroner doesn't examine them until they are brought back.

Perhaps a strange thing about your post was that you actually included a point of direct relevance from its summary (which you chose not to highlight):

It is known that micro-organisms involved in the process of putrefaction after death can produce alcohol, usually a mixture of ethanol and other volatile substances. This process occurs when a body is not refrigerated soon after death and is hastened by environmental conditions such as high temperatures and when the body has been traumatised.
​

The paper goes on to describe the biology and chemistry of this process. It's directly applicable to Meredith Kercher's situation. Note that severe trauma and high ambient temperatures "hasten" the process, but that the process occurs even in the absence of those factors.

The paper makes it clear that those factors make it more difficult. Meredith wasn't traumatized in the same way as a fatally injured pilot and she was on a cold tile floor.

I had thought that my post had adequately served to illustrate an underlying point of principle: that is to say, if one is measuring BAC in a dead person, there are specific known factors that may throw the measured result significantly from a "true" result (i.e. one that might have been taken from the same person when alive, moments before their death). I hadn't realised that the struggle for clarity on this issue would be even more taxing and painful than having to endure England's current mauling at the hands of the Aussies in the Ashes test match..............

Sorry for your pain as we here look forward to the next few Sundays into February.

The factors have been pointed out ad nauseam but just repeating doesn't mean Lalli didn't a good job. The backup testing confirmed it.

BAC post mortem testing happens every day. Perhaps you should become a consultant for the defense.

 

[Grinder]

What I know, from following criminal cases, is that post-mortem blood alcohol tests are not always precise, and the baseline result for someone who has not been drinking is not necessarily zero.

But I don't understand the lab techniques or technical issues involved, at all. Do you?

The pathologist reported a BAC. I don't dispute the finding, but I am not willing to draw any conclusions from it. Did he? Did he say this proved Meredith had been drinking before she was killed?

But you believe the duodenum work that Lalli did, right? You are willing to draw conclusions from that, aren't you?

It is my position that what Meredith did for her last 24 hours could be relevant and some effort should be made to determine what that was.

To paraphrase Mach, was he asked?

More than one test was run that both showed about .43 g/l and without contrary expert testimony I will believe the findings as reported.

 

[Grinder]

your sensitivity strikes me as rather Italian-esque

Ouch! But he'd be doing life in Italy.

 

[davefoc]

...

More than one test was run that both showed about .43 g/l and without contrary expert testimony I will believe the findings as reported.

To clarify for those of us in the peanut gallery:
.43 g/l =.043 in the system used in the US which corresponds to two drinks consumed very recently or a lot drinks consumed many hours before.

If the post-mortem BAC was accurate (which seems to be disputed here*) and there was a witness to her consumption of the alcohol (which there doesn't seem to be) then the finding would point to the notion that she was killed very soon after she had ingested the alcohol because so little of it had been metabolized (assuming that I understand this correctly).

As it is, speaking as a peanut gallery participant it doesn't look like there is much to conclude at all here since the facts are in dispute and the interpretation of the facts is in dispute even if there was agreement on what the facts were.

* Charlie Wilkes thinks the .43 result was clearly in error and the actual result was that only a trace of alcohol was present.