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

[Planigale]

To change the subject I think that Machiaveli et al ask some reasonable questions about the gastric emptying evidence. i have not really had enough time to do a proper literature review but it certainly is true that a lot of the quoted values for T lag (time to initiate gastric emptying) are based on experimental protocols of test meals on an empty stomach. Once you get into real life things are more complicated. A number of things including size and type of meal, alcohol and drugs (cannabinols appear to delay gastric emptying) all affect T lag. Stress seems not to have much of an effect. The effects are not simply additive (as has been said you cannot indefinitely delay gastric emptying just by snacking). However, the consequence seems to be that median T lag is right shifted by 30 - 60 minutes. This then means that having no gastric emptying by 21.00 is not such an outlier as simple estimates of gastric emptying imply, but 22.30 is still way out of a likely range.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'll answer the first question. In Italy guilty verdicts are not final until they are confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court. This means that the Italian Supreme Court rules on something like 80,000 cases per year. Compare that to the US Supreme Court's caseload of about 80 cases per year.

I believe that, in practice, almost all cases in Italy are rubber-stamped by the Italian Supreme Court as there is no way that jurists can really study and comprehend a large case workload. The judges must be dependent on staff to sift through and categorize thousands of cases for rubber stamp approval.

OK, but this doesn't actually answer the question. Legally, after the annulment of the acquittal, Knox/Sollecito were considered convicted murderers (I think). Shouldn't they have been arrested and jailed? Even if their legal status was in some weird purgatory between accused and convicted, they were still more deserving of imprisonment than the months they spent in jail before they were charged, let alone on trial before the first verdict.

My question actually goes to a suspicion I have that the judiciary is well aware of the weakness of its case (and may even view Sollecito as collateral damage in a witch hunt which has mutated into a face-saving exercise). I simply see no other excuse for Sollecito being out of jail right now.

I have a theory that I have raised here twice and asked other posters to correct or educate me on, but nobody has responded.

After Hellman's court found the defendants not just "not guilty" but actually "innocent", the Perugia prosecutors office had to be reeling in anger and embarrassment. Remember, from what we have seen the Perugia prosecutors, police, and forensic lab officials do not like to be challenged. Rather than drop the case, they appealed the not guilty verdict to the Supreme Court.

I believe that one way a prosecutor can work a case is to get it in front of a friendly judge/friend who agrees with the prosecutor to "takes ownership" of a case. That judge convinces other judges that he is on top of it, understands the issues, and knows how they (collectively) should rule - and the other judges (who must be overwhelmed by their caseload) acquiesce in practice and follow the first judge. Influencing one or two research clerks who work for a judge or two could be a practical way/conduit to influence that judge.

There's definitely something to that. But the reasoning in the Supreme Court's motivations report is so spurious I suspect there's a deeper strategy involved.

 

[RandyN]

Denied a fair trial. A fundamental right that the ECOHR would certainly find Italy in violation of once again...they lead the pack.

Why not have a time line indicating all the points that would lead to that osmotic conclusion of being denied a fair trial?

Where to start?
1. Denied lawyers during interrogation? Perhaps no...but how about denied lawyers until minutes before the first detention hearing?
2. Police brutality? No I am not a legal person but I understand this was before any trial. But I'm pretty sure smacking a girl in the head is illegal and would constitute an argument of some sort to the ECOHR. Unfortunately Knox defense denied she was hit therefore calling her a liar I suppose... which indicates incompetent defense to me.


Desert Fox says...

"I think you are being a bit too hard. . . .There have been a fair number of well know individuals arguing for their innocence".


Not enough to gain national attention unfortunately. There will be little to no reports until the motivation is released and perhaps a bit more attention when the appeal case is discussed but this will all remain page 6 reports mostly.

A fight between two big mouthed popular lawyers OTOH would get more story out and get more people looking. And once someone looks even a little they can see the farce that this case is...

Sunmaster14 came to that conclusion by reading a mostly guilt produced site...for me the proof for innocence came from reading Massei. This is not a difficult case...it is easy in fact.

What is difficult is understanding how so many judges and so many courts in Italy got this so wrong. And what motivates that? It becomes difficult for the average person to understand just how corrupt and abusive the Italian judicial system actually is.

Fortunately, the European Court Of Human Rights is quite familiar with Italy and its court abuses and violations. Italy remains standing in solidarity with its mafia like courts. It will take the ECOHR to show that the Italians are provably wrong. That will be a simple task IMHO. As long as the defendants don't rely on this same rotten defense teams.

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, but this doesn't actually answer the question. Legally, after the annulment of the acquittal, Knox/Sollecito were considered convicted murderers (I think). Shouldn't they have been arrested and jailed? Even if their legal status was in some weird purgatory between accused and convicted, they were still more deserving of imprisonment than the months they spent in jail before they were charged, let alone on trial before the first verdict.

My question actually goes to a suspicion I have that the judiciary is well aware of the weakness of its case (and may even view Sollecito as collateral damage in a witch hunt which has mutated into a face-saving exercise). I simply see no other excuse for Sollecito being out of jail right now.

To my way of thinking, this is the one thing that the Nencini court got right.

Knox and Sollecito were in prison for their 2009 trial, not because of guilt or innocence, but that in 2008, Judge Micheli ordered them held in "precautionary detention". The three grounds for this are if they are a flight risk, if they are likely to reoffend, or if they are likely to tamper with evidence.

After the 2009 conviction, Sollecito and Knox were not re-imprisoned because of the Massei conviction, they were returned because the "detention order" still stood.

In Oct 2011 when Judge Hellmann decalred them to be factually innocent, he also quashed the detention order. (He actually was not required to do that!)

But Knox and Sollecito were released.

Ok - up to 2014. When Nencini re-convicted them, all of this is (as explained by others) pending the confirmation by Cassazione, the Italian Supreme Court which gives the final ruling on all criminal cases.

Nencini ordered Sollecito's passport revoked, but, here's the kicker, said that Knox was "lawfully abroad". He did not order their detention, because (apparently) they are not a flight risk, nor likely to reoffend, nor will they tamper with (nonexistent) evidence.

Sollecito was actually in Austria when he heard he'd been reconvicted. He then returned to Italy across the border and spent the night in a villa. The police arrived the next morning to seize his passport and travel documents.

Tabloids and guilters are saying he was "caught trying to leave Italy." The opposite is true. I mean, who when trying to flee the country stops and registers for the night in the very last villa in the country!

But they are not imprisoned (or an extradition sought) before Cassazione signs off on the lower courts conviction. Their imprisonment in the meantime is by request of the prosecution and by order of a judge on precautionary grounds.

For instance, when Mignini was charged with a crime, obstruction of justice in the Narducci affair, he was free and actually prosecuting the case against these two while he, himself, could have been in prison. I mean, what are the chances that a prosecutor will tamper with evidence, when illegal wiretapping is his suspected crime!

 

[NancyS]

To change the subject I think that Machiaveli et al ask some reasonable questions about the gastric emptying evidence. i have not really had enough time to do a proper literature review but it certainly is true that a lot of the quoted values for T lag (time to initiate gastric emptying) are based on experimental protocols of test meals on an empty stomach. Once you get into real life things are more complicated. A number of things including size and type of meal, alcohol and drugs (cannabinols appear to delay gastric emptying) all affect T lag. Stress seems not to have much of an effect. The effects are not simply additive (as has been said you cannot indefinitely delay gastric emptying just by snacking). However, the consequence seems to be that median T lag is right shifted by 30 - 60 minutes. This then means that having no gastric emptying by 21.00 is not such an outlier as simple estimates of gastric emptying imply, but 22.30 is still way out of a likely range.

We know that Meredith had a mainly carbohydrate based meal, which usually has a quicker gastric emptying time - she was also not reported to have drunk alcohol or smoked cannabis with the meal. I don't think you can ever say anything with total certainty, but I do think that the time of death becomes less likely the later after 9pm you consider.

 

[sunmaster14]

I just hope all this is over in Sollecito's and Knox's favour before you've been at this going on 2 1/2 years.

Thanks for that history. I doubt it's going to be over in 2.5 years, unless the Supreme Court acquits upon review (which is not a negligible probability IMHO).

I suppose that it says something about the case that my BS detectors started sounding as soon as I immersed myself (unwittingly) in the most professional looking of the guilter websites.

If I wanted to make the case for Knox/Sollecito's guilt, I would actually base it on the incompetence of the Italian police - that the lack of physical evidence was actually due to the poor collection and storage methods. I don't know terribly much about DNA transfer, but it is surprising to me that Knox's DNA wasn't in Kercher's bedroom, given that they were living together for over a month and shared a bathroom. And that Sollecito's DNA wasn't all over Knox and therefore all over the bathroom (and maybe Kercher's bedroom). It is for this reason that my probability for Knox and Sollecito's guilt is floored at 1%. Well, that and the fact that all of my information has come from the internet.

 

[RandyN]

OK, but this doesn't actually answer the question. Legally, after the annulment of the acquittal, Knox/Sollecito were considered convicted murderers (I think). Shouldn't they have been arrested and jailed? Even if their legal status was in some weird purgatory between accused and convicted, they were still more deserving of imprisonment than the months they spent in jail before they were charged, let alone on trial before the first verdict. My question actually goes to a suspicion I have that the judiciary is well aware of the weakness of its case (and may even view Sollecito as collateral damage in a witch hunt which has mutated into a face-saving exercise). I simply see no other excuse for Sollecito being out of jail right now.




There's definitely something to that. But the reasoning in the Supreme Court's motivations report is so spurious I suspect there's a deeper strategy involved.

NO they are not considered convicted murderers. That will come after the SC confirms the conviction which I expect them to do in rubber stamp fashon.

Your second point is valid. They never should have been held at all before the first trial. In fact in the detainment hearing where they were locked up by Migninis close friend Claudia there was no evidence linking them to the crime at all. Mignini had a year before he charged them with a crime and made up a case to fit them out for that. See how that works over there?

Its optimistic to think that the judiciary is concerned about the weakness of the case. I don't think they are concerned at all. In fact they have been shamelessly unconcerned in spite of an overwhelming lack of evidence, facts or proof. Meanwhile they ignore strong circumstantial evidence that indicates incompetence and likely corrupt actions of police, prosecutors and even some judges. Prosecution witnesses lie and get caught and nothing happens...its as if it never happened. It is simply excused.

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox and Sollecito were in prison for their 2009 trial, not because of guilt or innocence, but that in 2008, Judge Micheli ordered them held in "precautionary detention". The three grounds for this are if they are a flight risk, if they are likely to reoffend, or if they are likely to tamper with evidence.

BTW sunmaster14, Judge Micheli has since said he regrets ordering their detention.

 

[sunmaster14]

DELETE

 

[Kaosium]

Would blame him if he did.

Canada might be a good place. . . .He has a much better case than Laurie Bembenek and Canada was incredibly reluctant to return her.

Heh, I still recall seeing the 'Run Bambi run' T-shirts around here (I grew up in Madison, WI).

 

[sunmaster14]

BTW sunmaster14, Judge Micheli has since said he regrets ordering their detention.

OK, thanks. I completely had the wrong idea about this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for that history. I doubt it's going to be over in 2.5 years, unless the Supreme Court acquits upon review (which is not a negligible probability IMHO).

I suppose that it says something about the case that my BS detectors started sounding as soon as I immersed myself (unwittingly) in the most professional looking of the guilter websites.

If I wanted to make the case for Knox/Sollecito's guilt, I would actually base it on the incompetence of the Italian police - that the lack of physical evidence was actually due to the poor collection and storage methods. I don't know terribly much about DNA transfer, but it is surprising to me that Knox's DNA wasn't in Kercher's bedroom, given that they were living together for over a month and shared a bathroom. And that Sollecito's DNA wasn't all over Knox and therefore all over the bathroom (and maybe Kercher's bedroom). It is for this reason that my probability for Knox and Sollecito's guilt is floored at 1%. Well, that and the fact that all of my information has come from the internet.

You, me, and many others have thought of this. Some say it's a ruddy miracle that Knox's biological material was not found in Meredith's room... it might have been there, the point being that the Scientific Police did not collect any samples in the room with Knox's DNA.

I finally came to the conclusion that the prosecution's case, and Massei's verdict, rests on the assumption that the cottage was 100% forensically sterile at 8:30 pm, Nov 1st, ready to receive the forensic record of the crime.

Massei convicted Sollecito on the basis of the now discredited bra-clasp. Massei convicted Knox on the basis of Knox's "biological-material" (Massei's rendering) being found mixed with Kercher's blood in five places in the cottage, outside of Meredith's bedroom.

This is the basis for one of the most prolific posters, comments'-section flooders, "The Machine/Harry Rag" who has repeated for the last 5 years Mignini's case, which on these two points is refuted by no less than Judge Massei:

1) that the whole cottage is the crime scene
2) that it is actual "mixed blood" of Knox's and Kerchers found in those five places.​

I call #1 to be The Machine/Harry Rag's donut theory. It is actually true what he says - the whole cottage IS the crime scene. But the hole in the donut here which The Machine/Harry Rag never explains is why Meredith's room doesn't contain anything relates to Amanda Knox - this was a brutal, bloody knifing!!!!? Why is the very centre of this horrible crime absent Knox/Sollecito?

#2 is refuted by Massei, who consistently says in his motivations report that those 5 places outside the room contain only Knox's "biological material". Massei goes on to theorize that the only way that Knox's biological material can be there, even in her own bathroom, is in the sloughing off of skin cells when Knox cleans Meredith's blood off of herself.

Yes, Massei said that. That raises about 100 questions by itself that Massei never addresses.... if Knox had been close enough to Kercher to be drenched in blood, where are her footprints, fingerprints in Meredith's blood?

Competent thinkers can take it from there.

Good theories actually converge on a finding. Guilter theories diverge from their find, because they raise more questions than they answer...

... and given that the present crop of guilters only make assertions, and never give their reasons, we now know why.

 

[Grinder]

BTW sunmaster14, Judge Micheli has since said he regrets ordering their detention.

where does this info come from?

 

[Planigale]

We know that Meredith had a mainly carbohydrate based meal, which usually has a quicker gastric emptying time - she was also not reported to have drunk alcohol or smoked cannabis with the meal. I don't think you can ever say anything with total certainty, but I do think that the time of death becomes less likely the later after 9pm you consider.

The problem is that even 21.00 seems late given the time of meal and 'normal' values of T lag. Not impossible but stretching things a bit, enough to worry me. However once we take into account delay in median gastric emptying with the meal spread over a bit of time, possible hang over of alcohol from the night before (pun intended) and fat from cheese / ice cream / cream a ToD of around 21.00 is more comfortable. A ToD of >22.00 is very unlikely. I really have no idea what the T1/2 for impact of cannabis might be; cannabis hangs around a long time cf alcohol so even a joint the night before might be significant.

 

[Grinder]

The problem is that even 21.00 seems late given the time of meal and 'normal' values of T lag. Not impossible but stretching things a bit, enough to worry me. However once we take into account delay in median gastric emptying with the meal spread over a bit of time, possible hang over of alcohol from the night before (pun intended) and fat from cheese / ice cream / cream a ToD of around 21.00 is more comfortable. A ToD of >22.00 is very unlikely. I really have no idea what the T1/2 for impact of cannabis might be; cannabis hangs around a long time cf alcohol so even a joint the night before might be significant.

It is highly likely that Meredith drank something either before the meal or with the meal not withstanding what the british girls said. She was found to have the full equivalent of one drink in her system by the same coroner that the duodenum evidence comes from. In order for her to have had alcohol in her system 16 hours after returning home the night before she would have been near death.

It is also not clear when SHE started eating, which could have been later even if the others started earlier. Just as Amanda and Raf didn't know exact times I'm sure the girls weren't keeping exact track either.

I doubt pot from the night before would delay much but maybe.

The digestive evidence should be looked at as more of confirming what we already knew to be correct (irony intended) and that she was dead by 10 pm. All credible evidence fits that time frame and none fits a TOD past 10 pm. Nara can not even give a time so if people choose to believe her at all they can't use her for a time. The car and tow truck make it difficult for a scream (if there was one) to have occurred between 10:30 and 11:15. The phone activity and cell connections all point to death by 10 pm or earlier.

If there had been chyme in the duodenum it wouldn't really move the TOD to later but the absence makes it nearly impossible. Osmotically the TOD couldn't be after 10 pm.

 

[platonov]

Baby steps

To keep the facts straight, Amanda didn't remember the 12:47 call either.

​

On a scale of important events, even the poo in the toilet is insignificant once the door is kicked in and Meredith is discovered dead.

But for Ms. Comfortable, the phone call to mom at midday is the most important thing. She goes on and on and on about it (gee, is she related to platonov?) until Massei intervenes and continues questioning Amanda about this forgotten call. Fimally, the questioning is passed to the civil plaintiffs where we get:

​

This guy gives snakes a bad reputation.

See, we can make progress on this thread – and its only taken 3 years.
ETA To be strictly accurate - she claimed in 2007 & 2009 not to remember the call.

Take note CW, LJ etc – it can be done.

But are 'we' sure that this forgetfulness wasn’t induced.

On this – Refuse to say

 

[anglolawyer]

There is a sensible poster called Planigale and another one with a similar name and I keep getting them mixed up. Sorry Planigale.

 

[platonov]

The thing about medicine

I see the early and precise ToD is still spinning merrily away and being ignored in the real world. Have no fear, I have no intention revisiting this trope for either comedic or educational purposes - it was disposed of years ago.
However as Rolfe among others has raised it again it would be wise [and an act of kindness] to stress test another aspect of her argument.

No, I don't think so. The most one could accuse Dr. Lalli of would be not noticing a small amount of ingesta in the duodenum. That doesn't alter the fact that the stomach contents were, indisputably, almost the entirety of Meredith's last meal, still recognisable as such.

Rolfe.

This rings a bell - it seems to have replaced 'semi digested' ( actually – what caused the change in terminology ?) which you used many times and always brought a wry smile to my face.

Why - well when it was first used in the original theory by KL or LJ, from where it was presumably copied, it caught my eye.
Naturally (having watched TV shows as a kid but not being a medical professional) my first thought was - can this be quantified.
Did the pathologist proffer a number, in terms of hours, for the state of digestion.
So it was the work of a moment to check the source document and discover that he had in fact quantified the issue. As to why KL or LJ had not used the actual number - well the most charitable explanation is that their arguments are not noted for being strong on numeracy.

And then Rolfe started and persisted in using the same vague term. Her lack of curiosity on this timing issue brought to mind a quote I spotted somewhere sometime.....

"The thing about medicine - its all about the numbers"

am unsure of the attribution.

Actually that would make a nice sig - assuming one wishes to put the maxim into practice. Merely using it as an ornament might serve to highlight the deficiency.

So - what did the pathologist say as to the state of digestion - in numbers.

I'm sure you will be glad to enlighten us all.
Actually given you reluctance to interrogate the source documents you could always refer back to the post where I gave you the number.


In case any mere laymen (who can both read text and numbers) are reading and cant stand the suspense - the answer is .......


...... 4 hours.


The thing about medicine ... eh ?

 

[Planigale]

There is a sensible poster called Planigale and another one with a similar name and I keep getting them mixed up. Sorry Planigale.

Don't worry so do I. Sometimes thoughts just flow. I worry about details. More flow of consciousness - the expert AK needs to recruit re 'confession / interrogation' is Gisli Gudjonsson from KCL. A nice european with an unimpeachable academic record on false confessions.

 

[AmyStrange]

Probabilities

-

To change the subject I think that Machiaveli et al ask some reasonable questions about the gastric emptying evidence. i have not really had enough time to do a proper literature review but it certainly is true that a lot of the quoted values for T lag (time to initiate gastric emptying) are based on experimental protocols of test meals on an empty stomach. Once you get into real life things are more complicated. A number of things including size and type of meal, alcohol and drugs (cannabinols appear to delay gastric emptying) all affect T lag. Stress seems not to have much of an effect. The effects are not simply additive (as has been said you cannot indefinitely delay gastric emptying just by snacking). However, the consequence seems to be that median T lag is right shifted by 30 - 60 minutes. This then means that having no gastric emptying by 21.00 is not such an outlier as simple estimates of gastric emptying imply, but 22.30 is still way out of a likely range.

-

Yes, digestion can have an extreme timeline of more than 2 - 2 1/2 hours for the stomach to start emptying into the duodenum after the start of the meal at 6 - 6:30, BUT the probabilities that this extreme timeline are actually in play, become less probable when you also take into consideration Meredith's last try to her mother and Rudy's Skype call where he says Meredith screamed at 9:20.

All of this, taken into consideration together, makes her death way more probable at around 9:30 (or earlier) rather than later, in my opinion,

d

-