You don't understand that computer interaction only shows that one person was there? Please explain how it could possibly prove more than one.
I didn't say that, I think it absurd to assume it doesn't alibi both people due to the fact they alibi each other. If Raffaele wasn't involved, Amanda wasn't involved or vis-versa.
Did either or both of the kids say they looked at Naruto before or during the 2009 trial? There is no mention of it in Massei.
Who cares? Maybe they didn't watch it, he just hit something on his keyboard and it started and played in the background. That sort of thing happens to me all the time when on the computer, I try to hit something and another program starts and I don't notice it because what I am trying to do pops up and I don't know/don't care the other one is running. It proves a human was interacting with the keyboard.
Huh?
I've asked you to explain what Lalli changed on Introna as you alleged before and now I ask what prosecution estimate was changed.
Lalli's estimate was originally 3-4 hours, he corrected it to 2-3 hours. Dan-O cited it about a month ago.
Introna looked at what you call facts and said that the TOD was between 21:30 and 22:30.
Here's one quote from his June 20, 2009 hearing (testimony)
Then we maximally possible range we have taken the time of his death as occurring three to four hours after the start of the assumption of the last meal that is 18.30, so the time of death to shrink between 21.30 and 22.30, not beyond.
This was based on no chyme in duodenum and a meal that started at 6:30 and lasted until 8:30.
6:30 + 3 hours = 9:30. 6:30 + 4 hours = 10:30. Simple, basic math, showing the prosecutions numbers didn't add up. When you use the corrected estimate of 2-3 hours it becomes 8:30-9:30 and then something interesting happens: since you have good reason to think it didn't happen before 9:00 PM you can ignore that possibility (you have new data!) and just take into account the probabilities of it occurring from 9:00 to 9:30. It just so happens that perfectly splits the bell curve (8:30-9:00 would be the left of the curve 9:00-9:30 would be the right of the curve--this is an unskewed bell curve btw) and when you just take the right of the curve the probabilities automatically go down and they'll be 'bunched up' towards the beginning (which was the middle of the bell curve before you split it) as it's not linear.
I've read the girls' actual testimony and they don't know when they ate. The estimates go from 5:30 to 6:30 and I saw no specific questions about when Meredith ate or how much she ate. There is no way that it is known how much she ate.
I've read that they said she wasn't feeling well and didn't eat much as a result that night and it's why she went home early. I don't know exactly where it came from, perhaps their interviews with Mignini or something they said to the press or someone else like Follain. At any rate 500 cc is compatible with what a slender young woman like Meredith would consume, there's no real reason to think anything was missing. If it was 200 cc that was found you'd have a better argument.
As I brought up, it is possible that in their handling of Meredith that chyme slipped past the duodenum and Randy agreed.
I believe it is
possible. However we have absolutely no reason to think that occurred and reason to think it did not: there wasn't much which could be missing.
When someone presents alleged facts that don't make sense, one need not be a skeptic to question the alleged facts.
Meredith eating at 6:30 means that her not passing anything to her duodenum by 9:00 PM amounts to about rolling snake eyes on the dice, it's not something that requires an investigation of whether they're loaded or not. Only by moving the dinner time back from there do you make it less likely, which means since that's kinda fuzzy anyway that it's probably not a good idea to do that.
I've asked for the science on gastric emptying that shows the longest but as of yet you haven't provided it.
You've posted the abstract for the longest we've found in any trial, the German one (Hellvig et al?) published in that medical journal. That includes the outlier of 200 minutes.
The quote on 2 to 4 hours for complete emptying is relevant because emptying must begin before it can finish and it demonstrates that 3 hours or even 2.5 hours is hard to believe for a starting time.
Maybe that's an indication that 2-4 hours isn't any sort of absolute estimate.
We clearly have at least a range of the girls' testimony of 5:30 to 6:30 for the pizza to be ready and the start of the meal by some of them. You clearly used 6 at some point. How much more likely is a 9:30 TOD with the 6:30 meal time than the 6 meal time?
Significant. It's not quite as dramatic as LJ's chart as the curve is skewed to the right, but it's not linear thus the curve is not flat.
Just a quick example of what I mean when I say it's not linear. That would look like this if you broke it down to half hour intervals:
1st half hour--33 1/3%
2nd half hour-33 1/3%
3rd half hour--33 1/3%
This is more what it would look like with a bell curve skewed to the right, note it's not as dramatic as LJ's because of the skew:
1st half hour--60%
2nd half hour--30%
3rd half hour--10%
It would decline each minute so it would start with 9:00 being about 3%, 9:01 about 2.85 % 9:02 2.75% 9:03 2.68% etc, declining down to the end. You'll be at or below 1% for the last minutes because you are at the very end of the curve. There's actually no data after 200 minutes.
Do you understand that if you accept 3 hours for the 6 pm meal time that it is just as possible for the 6:30 meal?
Let's put it this way: if there was only a 1% chance that Meredith could have eaten at 6 and not begun to empty by 9 then it is beyond a reasonable doubt she didn't eat at 6.
Which is an excellent reason to think they started eating later. The 500 cc and nothing in the duodenum is harder evidence than their vague remembrances. Trying to conflate the importance of something that
happened (Meredith had 500 cc's in her stomach and nothing in her duodenum) with something
unknown is where I think you make your mistake. One of them has hard evidence suggesting it happened and the other is a maybe, you cannot conflate the relevance of the two to the extent you're willing to believe the dice must be loaded because
under a different scenario (6:00 dinner start instead of 6:30) the one that
happened (500 cc in the stomach and nothing in the duodenum) would be as unlikely as a 9:30 ToD (a maybe) with a 6:30 start time.
The simpler way of putting it is if Meredith died at 9:00, then it shouldn't be a surprise that the evidence suggests that was more probable than 9:30 no matter what you do and the most probable scenario that accounts for all the evidence is that she started eating around 6:30 and was attacked around 9:00 PM. Trying to move the meal back to make a 9:00 attack time as improbable as something that
didn't actually happen (9:30+ ToD) and thus saying it all must be worthless is a 'user error.'
One invented by Bunnies to dupe the unwary. It makes sense to some people but it's entirely specious. That's why I will
not let this go: you called Introna's argument specious and you were wrong and I
will not let bunny droppings go unchallenged anymore if I have the time to get into it.
