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

[snook1]

There is a reason.
The climber uses the grid which was not there at the time of the break-in.
Also, he uses his shoes to climb on the wall of which there was no trace at the time of the scene inspection.

There is a moment where the climber stands on grid belonging to the window below. Being in that position makes it completely possible to open the shutter and to push the window to open. Also, getting to that position does not require holding to the grid of Filomena's window. Not at all. If you wanna take a second look at the video, it starts at :1:23 min of the video.

The climber stands on the grid of the window below, then closes the shutters (with holding to the windowsill), then opens them and then makes a step on the highest grate of the window below. By then, his upper body, including elbows is high enough to do whatever he wants with the freaking window. Simple as that.

 

[Grinder]

When talking with Marco, Filomena did refer to Amanda as the stupid one. Meredith, a year old than Amanda, was apparently smarter or more sophisticated. Amanda found her Harry Potter who liked to cuddle. Meredith found her rock drummer who, when walking with his buddies, ignored her when they passed each other on the street. These are the facts.

Where do these facts come from? What is the credible verifiable source?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that a ToD based on body temperature is going to have a wide margin of error and might well be completely useless.

However, the fact is that the temperature was eventually taken, and this was then used to estimate ToD. The margin of error was very wide indeed. But it seems the investigators just lumped for the mid-point and said, bingo.

If the temperature was going to be used to estimate ToD, it should have been taken as early as possible to minimise the error. If it was completely useless, it should not have been used. You can't have it both ways.

Rolfe.

Very true.

And not only that: with the Henssge Nomogram (which was the algorithm used to estimate ToD from residual body temperature), the error factor rises exponentially the further away from actual ToD the temperature is taken. For example, if temperature is taken within around 6 hours of actual ToD, the ToD can be estimated to within around a 90-minute window with a large part of the bell curve falling within the middle half hour of that range. However, if the temperature is taken 30 hours after actual ToD, then you get the sort of massive and highly-spread ToD windows (some 10 hours, with a very shallow bell on the bell curve) that were unfortunately the outcome in the Kercher case.

Had the body temperature been taken at around 4pm on the 2nd November (which it could very feasibly have been, had Mignini not inexplicably intervened to prevent it from happening), the ToD window could probably have been narrowed down to around 4-5 hours, with more confidence able to be placed in the mid-point of that range.

 

[Diocletus]

Very true.

And not only that: with the Henssge Nomogram (which was the algorithm used to estimate ToD from residual body temperature), the error factor rises exponentially the further away from actual ToD the temperature is taken. For example, if temperature is taken within around 6 hours of actual ToD, the ToD can be estimated to within around a 90-minute window with a large part of the bell curve falling within the middle half hour of that range. However, if the temperature is taken 30 hours after actual ToD, then you get the sort of massive and highly-spread ToD windows (some 10 hours, with a very shallow bell on the bell curve) that were unfortunately the outcome in the Kercher case.

Had the body temperature been taken at around 4pm on the 2nd November (which it could very feasibly have been, had Mignini not inexplicably intervened to prevent it from happening), the ToD window could probably have been narrowed down to around 4-5 hours, with more confidence able to be placed in the mid-point of that range.

I don't think that body temp or even digestion would ever prove death before 9:30, which is what is really needed to establish alibi definitively.

I just think that everything tells us that she died around 9:15-9:30, and it's virtually impossible for Sollecito and Knox to have been there.

 

[Grinder]

Unless she had to go back to the cottage in the morning for whatever reason.
Going to Gubbio after that would not have been a good idea.

Sure but Mach frames everything as if it were planned out and I can't think of any reason they would need to return to the cottage and would do everything to stay away. She would have seen eyes behind every window and corner. She would be sure someone would see her going to the cottage. Which reminds me of a subject that Dan is an expert on: the CCTV around the area both private and public.

We know there was no significant clean-up so what else would she have done there?

Were she guilty she would not have revealed that she did go back to the cottage in the morning, for that matter she would probably not have gone back at all.

Agreed. Why wouldn't she have gone as late as possible before Gubbio, say noon?

 

[Dan O.]

Does the error depend on the time after death? More specifically, does the error increase with time?

Yes it does. The body temperature is being maintained above the ambient temperature by the metabolism processes. when the blood stops transporting oxygen these processes shut down and the body begins to cool down to room temperature. part of the cooling down function is an exponential decay where the body looses heat in proportion to the difference between the body temperature and the ambient room temperature. As the body approaches the ambient temperature it looses heat more slowly so small errors in the measurements represent larger differences in time.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes it does. The body temperature is being maintained above the ambient temperature by the metabolism processes. when the blood stops transporting oxygen these processes shut down and the body begins to cool down to room temperature. part of the cooling down function is an exponential decay where the body looses heat in proportion to the difference between the body temperature and the ambient room temperature. As the body approaches the ambient temperature it looses heat more slowly so small errors in the measurements represent larger differences in time.

This is what I thought. So it is impossible to know a priori how precise your estimate is going to be.

 

[Rolfe]

Does the error depend on the time after death? More specifically, does the error increase with time?

Yes, very much so. And see what LondonJohn said.

Rolfe.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes, that's what I saw, too... and this is a better way of putting it...

Point is, it was no sweat at all to climb to the ledge and sit there, even without touching the bars on the bedroom window. It was also no sweat to manipulate the shutters... leaving Massei's own description of the "difficulty of the climb, and no one would do that 3 times".... well, as a bit of an exaggeration (!) from someone who didn't even bother to simulate it...

Massei's "no one would do (the climb) 3 times" fantasy bothered me when I first read it. Rudy was known to be there and a possible burglar. He was also a semi-pro basketball player. Ever watch a basketball player in a game? See him jump up to shoot, block, or grab for a rebound? Ever see one go up and down 3 times in succession? Ever see a basketball player run back and forth on the court 3 times in a row? "Sorry coach, I couldn't jump up for the ball. I've already jumped up twice and couldn't go up a third time!" . . . "I know, coach. Yes I'm an athlete, but I can't. It's in the Massei rule book - can't go up and down 3 times".

 

[Grinder]

When one does not use the bars, their presence made it harder to climb and to perch. Yes, the video cut away momentarily, but so what?

The climber used the bars to make it easier. He held onto them while sitting on the ledge. It was precisely at the cut that he moves to the ledge. One never sees him move to the ledge and when on the ledge he is holding the bars. There is absolutely nothing in the video that has the bars making the move to the ledge more difficult.

Between 1:47 and 1:51 he moves to the ledge but we don't see the actual move.

Watch it and give me the time that shows the bars being a problem versus an aid. Here it is

 

[Grinder]

Given the discussion here maybe it is just as well that it was not shown.

True, the first time the climber uses the upper bars. The bars leave his centre of gravity so that he uses his feet on the wall.

THEN he shows how it's done without grabbing the bars. This is where the bars are an impediment. ... his body still leaves CoG at an awkward place, but point is it's still very doable.....

.... and would have been easier if the bars hadn't been there! The court should have been shown a demo without the bars there.

He never climbs without the bars. Why do you keep saying this? Give the time stamp where he moves from the lower window to the ledge without using the bars. He doesn't ever do it.

 

[Grinder]

There is a moment where the climber stands on grid belonging to the window below. Being in that position makes it completely possible to open the shutter and to push the window to open. Also, getting to that position does not require holding to the grid of Filomena's window. Not at all. If you wanna take a second look at the video, it starts at :1:23 min of the video.

The climber stands on the grid of the window below, then closes the shutters (with holding to the windowsill), then opens them and then makes a step on the highest grate of the window below. By then, his upper body, including elbows is high enough to do whatever he wants with the freaking window. Simple as that.

Actually he stands on the window frame of the lower window not the highest grate.. :39

It may well be the case that he could have lifted himself but he didn't.

ETA - although it was easy for the rock climber to open the new shutters, the ones in place would have been jammed shut if one believes Filomena on this point, which I don't. She originally was unsure but became more sure as time went by. If they were closed it would require at least two trips, which wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Diocletus]

He never climbs without the bars. Why do you keep saying this? Give the time stamp where he moves from the lower window to the ledge without using the bars. He doesn't ever do it.

I don't know why he does that. He should have just held on to the bottom edge of a shutter.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, very much so. And see what LondonJohn said.

Rolfe.

Thanks, it's very nice that you people take the time to present real information.

 

[AmyStrange]

Body temp as a TOD estimator

-

Does the error depend on the time after death? More specifically, does the error increase with time?

-

The body loses (on average) 1.4 -1.5 degrees per hour after death.

Once the body temp gets closer to room temperature, it will then not be as reliable because (for one thing) it can stay at room temperature for as long the room stays at that temp.

Let's say room temperature is 70 degrees and Meredith wasn't sick and her body temp was a healthy 98.6 degrees. Subtract room temp from body temp and divide that number by 1.5:

98.6 - 70 / 1.5 = 19.07 hours

So technically, if death occurred less than 19 hours before the temp is taken, and as close to TOD as possible (say within six hours), then you should be able to pinpoint pretty accurately TOD, within an hour or less.

One draw back is that the further temps are apart, the faster the body temp will try to reach room temp. What that means is at death the body loses heat faster (if room temp is less than body temp), but as the body gets closer to room temp, the heat loss is slower.

This can be visualized by putting a body into either an oven or freezer with a temp difference of over 100 degrees and it's easier to understand why the body would lose or raise temps faster. This doesn't happen as dramatically when the body temp and room temp are closer together.

Of course, the calculations are a little different depending on whether the victim is wearing clothes, in water, and also what the weather is like or whether there is a heat or cold source nearby. Also, if the victim is in a fight and their body temp is raised, but all these things can be put into the calculation to make it more accurate.

In conclusion, unless you know with certainty that the TOD was longer than 20 hours (one way is by feeling the body to see how warm it is), TOD of death can be accurately calculated to within an hour or closer if the body temp is taken closer to death, up to six hours after, in my opinion.

After six hours, it jumps to an margin of error of three hours and the closer to room temp (the body gets) the larger the margin of error. But, if they had taken the body temp when Meredith was found, her body would have been warmer than room temp and a calculation could have been made to within three to six hours of actual time of death. That in conjunction with last meal, post mortem lividity, and rigor mortis would have helped tremendously. More evidence is always better than less. It seems the PLE liked less evidence rather than more. They like speculation rather better than actual data.

Waiting more than 24 hours (not to mention also moving the body into another environment and room temperature) DID make the body temp useless, because by then it would have loss all it's body heat and practical use as a gauge for time estimation.

Hope this helps,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

He never climbs without the bars. Why do you keep saying this? Give the time stamp where he moves from the lower window to the ledge without using the bars. He doesn't ever do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsQLKWDskhA

Argue this if you want. at 7:34, the part where he hoists himself up without the bars is clipped out. However he summarizes it as, "bars or no bars, it's not a problem."

Suit yourself. For me, as he hoists himself up just using the sill, the bars (ie. not touching them, but they are still shallowing the place one can put oneself!) are an impediment.... if they are not there, it is simply no problem.

That we are here in 2014 after the channel 5 demo says buckets about what's been wrong with arguing this case.

 

[Katody Matrass]

He never climbs without the bars. Why do you keep saying this? Give the time stamp where he moves from the lower window to the ledge without using the bars. He doesn't ever do it.

Looks to me like he's on the ledge at 1:47. Without using the bars.

 

[Strozzi]

He never climbs without the bars. Why do you keep saying this? Give the time stamp where he moves from the lower window to the ledge without using the bars. He doesn't ever do it.

Having already broken the window, Rudy, standing on the bars, would have reached in with one hand, turned the latch handle, and pushed open the windows inward. Then he would have had the entire width and depth of the window sill to hold on, place his hands palms-down on and hoist himself up, sit on, kneel on.

The window bars limit (confine) the demonstration climber to a narrow outer strip of the window sill, making it much more difficult. Without any window bars installed, I bet once the window is opened inward even a fat old guy like me can get up and in.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a screen capture....

The window bars limit (confine) the demonstration climber to a narrow outer strip of the window sill, making it much more difficult. Without any window bars installed, I bet once the window is opened inward even a fat old guy like me can get up and in.

Speak for yourself! I'd never get in in a million years!

The elephant in the room!!???!??? The bars need to be there in the first place....

 

[GWCarver]

So, did Mignini ever explain how doing something as routine as taking the temperature of a murder victim's body would destroy evidence? If one took the probe or thermometer used and dropped it into an evidence bag after taking the temperature, what evidence would be missing or destroyed?

I think Mignini didn't allow the body temperature to be taken for the same reason he didn't record the interrogations. It helps him to present evidence favorable to his prosecution rather than allowing his case to be nailed down by facts. After roughly 30 years of experience, I think one can reasonably presume everything he does or doesn't do is for a reason.