I see you ignored your mistake about Introna's time and what he as an expert said about TOD.
I see you found where Massei misquoted Introna but ignored where he quoted him accurately on this subject in the post you responded to that I cited for you. One more time:
Massei PMF 177 said:
Professor Introna therefore recalled the witness depositions of Meredith’s friends, from which it would have resulted that Meredith began eating her last meal at around 18:30–19:00 pm on November 1, 2007 (page 25 of the report already cited several times, and the declarations made in the court hearing of June 20, 2009). Based on these elements and considering a time of gastric emptying of 2 to 3 hours after the commencement of the ingestion of the last meal, Professor Introna asserts that the violence suffered by Meredith, and which probably caused the cessation of the digestive process, began between 21:00 pm and 21:30 pm.
You really should have read those threads! Let's just say you weren't the first to discover that misquote. I think it was out of context actually, he was just giving an example of what Lalli's original (later corrected if I understand correctly) testimony said, as just exactly what t-lag and the absence of material in the duodenum
meant is not universally understood. That Massei chose to quote that part there is
interesting, however he did quote him accurately when summarizing his presentation so who knows, perhaps it was just a brain fart.
I know what actuarial tables do but you don't seem to be able to grasp that the 3 hour mark, if that's the one you are picking, is like the 105 age where 30% live until 107, even though at birth it was only .021% that were going to live that long.
That should be an 'uh-
duh!' kind of thing: obviously you're more likely to reach 107 if you get to 105, mainly because you've already made it ~98.5% of the way and most everyone else has died before then and has
zero chance. However you'll note that even though you're 98.5% of the way there you don't have a 98.5% chance of making it to 107, odds are you'll
still die before you reach 107 and the
last years are the toughest, just like the last half hour from 2.5-3.0 is the one essentially
no one can get past.
We have no information on a group of people that didn't start moving chyme for 3 hours but those people will have a much higher likelihood of going to 3.5 than the general population.
Relatively? Sure. Most all will have a zero percent chance. But a 'much higher likelihood' than zero (or effectively) is still almost nothing. So there's a 1.25% chance compared to zero or say 0.25%, that's effectively the same thing.
The way that any time they ate leaves you with the same conclusion about TOD is foolish.
That's not what I said, but let me put it into very plain and simple language. Since the outer limit of the testimony given was three hours and the clinical studies that were perused corroborated that, (with the outlier of 200 min in one study), then here's how you apply that 3 hour limit in reference to whether someone who has an electronic alibi until 9:30 minimum could be involved in the murder (that the attack happened after 9:30) in relation to the time the meal was eaten:
6PM meal time+ 3 hours is 9 PM, therefore no, it exceeds 3 hours and thus the odds are effectively nil.
6:30 meal time + 3 hours is 9:30 PM. No, that's the cutoff, there's no time for them to get there and 3 hours is the outside limit anyway.
7:00 PM mealtime = 3 hours is 10:00 PM so yes this is indeed a reasonable possibility, but unlikely. It is still most likely she was attacked soon after 9:00 PM, but the odds are lower and allow for a greater chance of it being 9:30 PM, and in fact dwindle off until 10:00 PM which is still within the reasonably possible range.
Now, this is a product of being at the far right of the curve, where the data dies. For 6:00 and 6:30 there's nothing over there except the one outlier in the one study. It also means that everything to the
left is more probable, so since we know that she was alive at 9:00 PM and could not have died sooner, but the probabilities are increasing every minute that she would have passed something to her duodenum until they (effectively) reach 100% after 3.0 hours the
most probable time
has to be as soon after nine as is possible, but that doesn't mean it
definitely was the first minute, but that first minute is most probable, the next slightly less, etc because that's where you are on the curve and you're decending to effectively a zero percent chance (or where almost no one has ever done it) at an alarming rate.
As Randy pointed out there's also
numerous indications that corroborate it happening at that time, notably that it looks like Meredith did almost nothing she would have been expected to do when she arrived like her laundry, studying, taking off her jacket, plus there's the fact that there's suggestions Rudy was already there what with the broken window and the dump which likely didn't happen after the murder. Since she arrived at 9:00 PM and all these factors suggest she was attacked soon after that and it just so happens her stomach contents suggest the sooner the more likely, I think it highly likely she was attacked soon after 9:00 PM.
And yes, the girls were not marking down times and what was eaten by whom. Could Meredith have taken her pizza and left it for later, of course. The fact that 500 cc of food was in the stomach doesn't prove anything about when or if chyme had started to move. Maybe the meal was 600 cc or 750 cc, no one knows.
We have a pretty good description of her meal, 500 cc is consistent with the reports of what she ate and no evidence anywhere suggesting anything 'disappeared.' What we do know is that there's no reason to think there's anything not accounted for.
If it is said that they ate at 6 you accept that and allow for 3 hours of non-movement but if they ate at 6:45 you say 3 hours would be nearly impossible.
You don't think fifteen minutes amounts to a hill of beans, do you? It is however a good tenth or so of the possible variation, and since you're at the far side of the curve and it has to end
somewhere, that pretty much turns out to be where it is. It's like ten years on those actuarial tables, which is also about a tenth of the possible variation.
Incidentally I think it unlikely she ate at 6:00 PM, just that it is in the range of reasonable possibility considering the evidence of gastric emptying.
ETA - if one die has a one up then the odds of rolling snake eyes becomes 16% which is more analogous to Meredith not starting for 3 hours and then holding off for another 1/2 hour or 3/4.
Nope, not even close. The data from the studies shows how untrue that is. So does the actuarial data, as it's the same kind of curve. A half hour utterly devastates the chances, plus it's the very toughest half hour for anyone to get through, just like every year on the actuarial tables has a higher chance of dying (for males after ~28) which accelerates drastically each year as you get to the last twenty or so years.
You've already rolled 'snake eyes' to get to 2.5 hours, you need to roll it
again (and again and again and again and again to get to the 11:45 ToD!) and you can tell that by the odds of those who made it to close to 3 hours.
Do you have a random number generator for percentiles? If you do, go to the
actuarial table and start at 80. See that first column? The one with 0.061620? That's basically a 6.16% chance you will die that year, thus take your RNG and see if it's higher than 0.062 (6.2%) and if it is, you 'live' and go to 81 where you now have to roll over 0.068 or you're toast. Keep going and see how long you 'last' and see the concept I've been trying to get across be illustrated: with each and every year the chance you 'croak' increases until that nice comfy 94% or so chance of making it to the next year has become a 20% you won't
each and every year and increasing each time!
Do you know what the odds are you'll succeed on an 80% chance three times in a row?
I'm willing to bet you'll be surprised to find out. Let's call this game 'Grinder gets smoked.' Please try this because I'm tired of typing! I'm to the point I'm biting back a certain phrase which was once damned popular in these threads to posts like yours which I've never used because it's lazy and was once used to such ill effect, and at this juncture could be considered a threat to imbue mental anguish in some jurisdictions:
Read the Thread.
All of your arguments have been thoroughly debunked, with passion, flourish, endless repetition and reams of scholarly papers. They are not original or valid, though some of them are clever. The prosecution does not even hold to much of what it pretended in Massei, in part because Massei totally ducked this argument because
there is no answer to it that leaves a reasonable possibility Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder.
The real answer is that Meredith didn't go three hours, it was not much more than 2.5, perhaps 2.75 hours. She ate at about 6:20 and her digestion slowed and never recovered starting at about 9:05 and within about ten minutes or so was dead.
Did Randy ever tell you what he used to do and how many times he did it?
That's why they lie, Grinder, that's why they obsfuscate, that's why they mock it and flee in terror whenever it is broached. You're not doing that, you just haven't realized how many times this has been discussed the last 5 or so years, it just stopped being a topic of discussion because 'we'
))
won. Not just the acquittal, but in the prosecution dropping the 11:45 ToD and sneaking back into the realm of the barely possible. That doesn't mean the fact the most probable ToD, from this and other data, of her being attacked soon after returning home has
changed, but considering we had trouble convincing
some people that 11:45 was utterly absurd, how much fun do you think it is to try to convince someone 10:00 isn't actually that much more probable either? Since 11:45 is basically absolute zero that's not that tough.
However it's
complicated and it appears very difficult for people to understand and there's other ways of arguing it. Plus I dunno about anyone else
but it's tiresome. 
