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

[Grinder]

That looks like a subtly different point to extradition because there was no quid pro quo. The alternative to overseas US military personnel being tried under a special jurisdiction would simply have been that they be tried locally by the Brits (in this case) which would just be expensive for the latter and might require intrusive and unwanted access to US bases to investigate.

The alternative to putting extradition in place is that folks can commit crimes in your country and then run away to Italy (say) and thereby get off scot free. Over time, that is capable of being seriously corrosive to social order so some relaxation of strict constitutional guarantees is necessary to make it work. That doesn't mean handing over God-fearing Americans to the North Koreans to be summarily shot but just turning a blind eye to some of your treaty partners' quaint little foibles now and then.

Wasn't that case about an US citizen having the right not to be tried in military court? The defendant was a military dependent stationed in England IIRC.

 

[anglolawyer]

It would seem that changes of the internal system of justice wouldn't negate a treaty. If we had a treaty with Italy when the system supposedly switched over to an adversarial system did that require an amended or new treaty?

That would have been a much bigger change.

As I understand it the Constitution protects all people, not just citizens, while IN the United States of America not all citizens no matter where in the world. It protects people from being tried twice IN the USA not worldwide. The Italian system is not unique and is accepted as a reasonable approach by international law.

The way they handled the fast track, the Lumumba calunnia and the civil lawyers in the trial seem just plain wrong but seemingly legal there.

I highly doubt the US eschews extradition treaties with countries that use the inquisitorial system just for that reason. I saw a hearing in Germany once and that looked inquisitorial to me. It was only sentencing but the enormous panel of the judges (there were, like, 11 of the ****ers) questioned the accused about some bag snatch conducted from a motor bike while their lawyers mostly sat mute, chipping in the odd clarification here and there. In Germany, the brightest lawyers go straight to the bench without stopping to learn the trade as advocates and, so it seems, conduct the cases in a very interventionist manner.

I also saw a civil hearing in Germany. It was an interlocutory (interim) hearing concerning a bee-hive, or rather a garage which was supposed to have been constructed with provision for bee-hives on the roof. The two lawyers (without clients) sat at a small table facing each other sideways to the three (!) judges. I watched this short hearing with a German lawyer friend and afterwards the judges' curiously asked what we were doing there (normal people do not go to these hearings) and my friend explained I was just visiting resulting in some questions and an extremely embarrassing examination of my paltry German.

I advise the US not enter into an extradition treaty with Germany or, if it's too late for that, to tear up the existing one since they are deeply alien

 

[anglolawyer]

Wasn't that case about an US citizen having the right not to be tried in military court? The defendant was a military dependent stationed in England IIRC.

Yes it seems it was. I think that's different. The US made a deal with the Brits under which it tried its own soldiers for crimes they committed on our sacred soil. But they went too far and incorporated procedures that were not compliant with the constitootion. That is really no different from any situation where Americans are being tried by Americans (maybe at sea or on some island base?) or even at a courts martial at a US base. It doesn't say anything about the tension between the desirability of extradition treaties on the one hand and wanting to afford everyone their rights on the other because there is no tension in the case Bill mentioned.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thoughts on lag times

If I understand this a little, it basically means that some don't register T(lag) until a point later in the digestion than first chyme entering the duodenum. So if a study had 80 min as the median or 180 min as the longest, the movement had started earlier if we are looking at what we have called T(lag) if the study used the point of inflection instead.

It's early here and the coffee is just kicking in so perhaps I'm not getting it or your point.

One definition of T(lag), is that it is the time at which the stomach is 90% full, and 10% has passed. That definition is similar to the how I interpreted T(lag) from the graph from the web site from the university in Colorado (I would have chosen a different symbol for this time, if it had been up to me). Why 10% passing and not 1% passing with 99% remaining? It might be that a quantity as small as 1% presents difficulties in measuring accurately, but that is just my speculation.

The other definition of T(lag) is that it is the time at which the rate of emptying is maximal (the inflection point in the graph). I played around with the numbers in one of the papers, and IIRC the two times are not equal. I don't have time this week to discuss this in depth, but it would help to figure out which definition Hellmig and coworkers used.

 

[acbytesla]

You are embarrassing yourself Dan O. I think you may have stared at all this information for too long. I have no interest in debating the case with a person that honestly believes that Meredith's clothes came off by accident and that Guede accidentally raped her. Its beyond comprehension that you would put forth such a theory.

I came here to see if you really believed what you wrote. I have my answer.

I have explained many times what I think happened that night. And my beliefs are supported by evidence. It's all available online.

Have fun with your wild theories and your imaginary table that you keep them on. I hope you come back to reality soon.

I think JREF is a pretty cool place. I like listening to people debating various topics. This case has gone on far too long, and I think the thread has probably seen one too many theories at this point. Please stop and think about what you are saying.

I'm not sure that Meredith was actually raped Bruce...by that I mean penis penetration. Sexually assaulted..no doubt. The position of her clothes as well as DNA from Rudy inside her vagina prove that. Whether or not the stain on the pillow case is actually semen is up for debate and not confirmed.

I find all the reconstructions of precisely what happened inside her bedroom that night doubtful. Not that someone hasn't accurately reconstructed the murder, just that there really is no way to know for sure by the evidence alone.

 

[Bill Williams]

I highly doubt the US eschews extradition treaties with countries that use the inquisitorial system just for that reason. I saw a hearing in Germany once and that looked inquisitorial to me. It was only sentencing but the enormous panel of the judges (there were, like, 11 of the ****ers) questioned the accused about some bag snatch conducted from a motor bike while their lawyers mostly sat mute, chipping in the odd clarification here and there. In Germany, the brightest lawyers go straight to the bench without stopping to learn the trade as advocates and, so it seems, conduct the cases in a very interventionist manner.

I also saw a civil hearing in Germany. It was an interlocutory (interim) hearing concerning a bee-hive, or rather a garage which was supposed to have been constructed with provision for bee-hives on the roof. The two lawyers (without clients) sat at a small table facing each other sideways to the three (!) judges. I watched this short hearing with a German lawyer friend and afterwards the judges' curiously asked what we were doing there (normal people do not go to these hearings) and my friend explained I was just visiting resulting in some questions and an extremely embarrassing examination of my paltry German.

I advise the US not enter into an extradition treaty with Germany or, if it's too late for that, to tear up the existing one since they are deeply alien

Now that I am in my dotage I get to read. I've now read more than is decent about international treaties. It is quite the "history of treaty making," in relation to international extraction.... which includes, I might add, rendition which is the ugly cousin, who is kept upstairs locked in a bedroom when you have polite company over to talk about this over dinner and cocktails.

I'm beginning to think of the big mistake we are all making when quoting from "treaties". They are smoke screens. As first nations/aboriginal people have found out here in North America, they entered into treaty-making on the literal meaning of the process - it was supposed to be a nation-to-nation agreement, with the de facto understanding that each was sovereign.

Hey Cochise, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Short Bear!!!..... how's it going so far in the sovereignty department?

But I digress. These treaties are smoke screens. As white papers prepared by extradition lawyers in the US write, the dirty little secret of treaties is that even they are the poor cousin to the State Department in the US, which is going to do whatever the hell it wants anyways, balancing internal criticism with the problems it might cause overseas.

It's why the most esteemed lawyer on this thread, all-be-him an "anglo"lawyer, says, "Anyone who thinks they know how an extradition treaty will turn out, is fooling themselves.."

Extradition treaties are in fourth place to political considerations (State Department which has "royal prerogative" over it, and unlike Her Majesty heirs and successors is not afraid to use it), as well as the many, many, many other processes (regular and irregular) which lurk close by.

Strangely, as it applies in this case I feel more hopeful than ever, even though it is more cloak and dagger than anyone should really be comfortable with.

 

[Dan O.]

I find all the reconstructions of precisely what happened inside her bedroom that night doubtful. Not that someone hasn't accurately reconstructed the murder, just that there really is no way to know for sure by the evidence alone.

Rudy Guede did not vaguely murder Meredith Kercher. Either he preformed a sequence of precise actions that resulted in Meredith's death or he didn't. If we cannot find a sequence of precise actions that account for all of the available evidence, how can we continue to say that Rudy is the one responsible? This is the same question I ask of the guilters when it comes to their belief of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. Why should we hold ourselves to a different standard?

 

[anglolawyer]

Now that I am in my dotage I get to read. I've now read more than is decent about international treaties. It is quite the "history of treaty making," in relation to international extraction.... which includes, I might add, rendition which is the ugly cousin, who is kept upstairs locked in a bedroom when you have polite company over to talk about this over dinner and cocktails.

I'm beginning to think of the big mistake we are all making when quoting from "treaties". They are smoke screens. As first nations/aboriginal people have found out here in North America, they entered into treaty-making on the literal meaning of the process - it was supposed to be a nation-to-nation agreement, with the de facto understanding that each was sovereign.

Hey Cochise, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Short Bear!!!..... how's it going so far in the sovereignty department?

But I digress. These treaties are smoke screens. As white papers prepared by extradition lawyers in the US write, the dirty little secret of treaties is that even they are the poor cousin to the State Department in the US, which is going to do whatever the hell it wants anyways, balancing internal criticism with the problems it might cause overseas.

It's why the most esteemed lawyer on this thread, all-be-him an "anglo"lawyer, says, "Anyone who thinks they know how an extradition treaty will turn out, is fooling themselves.."

Extradition treaties are in fourth place to political considerations (State Department which has "royal prerogative" over it, and unlike Her Majesty heirs and successors is not afraid to use it), as well as the many, many, many other processes (regular and irregular) which lurk close by.

Strangely, as it applies in this case I feel more hopeful than ever, even though it is more cloak and dagger than anyone should really be comfortable with.

Well, it's true, or nearly true, there is no world court for one country to take their breach of contract treaty case and seek damages against another. And the US is very powerful, which makes pushing it around difficult. In the long term, though, countries that acquire a rep for treaty-breaking don't get asked to enter into new ones and, on the whole, that is probably a bad thing. So it may be political but it isn't nothing.

I jolly well hope I am the most esteemed lawyer here btw because AFAIK I'm the only one (although Diocletus certainly shapes up) The remark you quoted of mine was really directed at those who pronounce:

'Amanda will [never/certainly*] be extradited.'

There is simply no way of knowing. The only basis for forming a firm opinion would be if there were some clear, recent, authoritative and decisive case on all fours with hers. Nobody has turned one up yet.


* delete as appropriate

 

[anglolawyer]

Rudy Guede did not vaguely murder Meredith Kercher. Either he preformed a sequence of precise actions that resulted in Meredith's death or he didn't. If we cannot find a sequence of precise actions that account for all of the available evidence, how can we continue to say that Rudy is the one responsible? This is the same question I ask of the guilters when it comes to their belief of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. Why should we hold ourselves to a different standard?

What do you mean by 'precise actions'?

 

[LondonJohn]

If I understand this a little, it basically means that some don't register T(lag) until a point later in the digestion than first chyme entering the duodenum. So if a study had 80 min as the median or 180 min as the longest, the movement had started earlier if we are looking at what we have called T(lag) if the study used the point of inflection instead.

It's early here and the coffee is just kicking in so perhaps I'm not getting it or your point.

It does make sense that the big consensus study I've referred to had T(lag) between 10 and 30 minutes which would line up with the shorter methodology. Maybe?

If in fact "real" T(lag) is much shorter than the 80/120 minute results then it heightens my belief that Lalli missed something, Meredith ate just
before leaving or her medical condition caused significant delay.

If I understand the two definitions of T(lag) it as if this science is run by Italians making the conclusions compatible with whatever one wants.

How can a science have two definitions for the same thing that is seemingly important to determining someone's health.

Chris if this is all wrong please let everyone know and if you think the explanation is too boring please PM it to me.

In essence, this is all about the difficulty (to the point of near-impossibility) of monitoring food transit through from the stomach to the intestines in living patients.

For all these sorts of studies, methods have to be used to trace the passage of food. These typically involve the placing of radioactive or other markers within the ingested food, and monitoring what happens to these markers. Without having an endoscope within the stomach (which would obviously affect the process adversely), it's impossible to know when food first starts passing from the stomach to the duodenum. All you can do is track when the first marker passes from the stomach to the duodenum. And if there are (say) ten markers within the food, then the moment when the first marker is monitored moving from the stomach to the duodenum can only be said to represent the point at which around 10% (or, statistically, between perhaps 6% and 14%) of the stomach contents have passed through to the duodenum.

Strictly speaking, T(lag) always refers to the lag phase before food starts to transit. However, the immense difficulty in measuring this lag phase accurately in living subjects means that proxies for T(lag) have necessarily developed in order to reflect experimental limitations.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, I note with amusement (once again) that recent pro-guilt analysis of the bathmat casually throws in a "second foot print" on the mat - which others have then picked up upon and declared to be that of Knox's bare foot. "Gotcha!" they cry!

But the morons fail to notice the very prominent police ruler in the photo, which can easily be compared with the "foot print". Doing so reveals the "foot print" to be some 19cm in length. And that's smaller than any adult female foot print length, and definitely far smaller than Knox's own foot print, which is some 22.5cm in length.

I dunno - maybe a child was involved.....? Or maybe the pro-guilt idiots are only seeing what they want to see, with little recourse to objectivity or basic rational analysis? I wonder which?

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy Guede did not vaguely murder Meredith Kercher. Either he preformed a sequence of precise actions that resulted in Meredith's death or he didn't. If we cannot find a sequence of precise actions that account for all of the available evidence, how can we continue to say that Rudy is the one responsible? This is the same question I ask of the guilters when it comes to their belief of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. Why should we hold ourselves to a different standard?

Of course he did Dan, but you cannot possibly know precisely what those actions are by the available evidence in front of you. You know the result. Meredith was murdered, how her body was left, the stains and wounds that were made, but there is no way for you or anyone else in my opinion to know confidently the sequence of actions taken by the evidence. You may have theories...but that is the best you will accomplish.

I think we can confidently say that only Rudy was involved mostly by the pattern of shoe prints in the room. That said it is actually impossible to know that 100 percent either.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, it's true, or nearly true, there is no world court for one country to take their breach of contract treaty case and seek damages against another. And the US is very powerful, which makes pushing it around difficult. In the long term, though, countries that acquire a rep for treaty-breaking don't get asked to enter into new ones and, on the whole, that is probably a bad thing. So it may be political but it isn't nothing.

I jolly well hope I am the most esteemed lawyer here btw because AFAIK I'm the only one (although Diocletus certainly shapes up) The remark you quoted of mine was really directed at those who pronounce:

'Amanda will [never/certainly*] be extradited.'

There is simply no way of knowing. The only basis for forming a firm opinion would be if there were some clear, recent, authoritative and decisive case on all fours with hers. Nobody has turned one up yet.


* delete as appropriate

I cannot say NEVER. I usually avoid absolutes. That said, I highly doubt it. As you have pointed out, this is a political act its heart. Treaties get broken in little ways all the time. That doesn't mean the parties involved throw out the treaty or stop working with each other. I believe that everyone grossly overestimates the ramifications of the US telling Italy NO on extraditing Amanda Knox. As you mentioned. The US is a very powerful and influential nation. Do you really believe Anglo that any country including Italy would not sign another treaty with the US on the basis of the non-extradition in this very controversial case?

 

[anglolawyer]

I cannot say NEVER. I usually avoid absolutes. That said, I highly doubt it. As you have pointed out, this is a political act its heart. Treaties get broken in little ways all the time. That doesn't mean the parties involved throw out the treaty or stop working with each other. I believe that everyone grossly overestimates the ramifications of the US telling Italy NO on extraditing Amanda Knox. As you mentioned. The US is a very powerful and influential nation. Do you really believe Anglo that any country including Italy would not sign another treaty with the US on the basis of the non-extradition in this very controversial case?

It happens quite a lot that countries refuse to extradite to each other. The Irish even refuse to extradite IRA suspects to us but it has yet to mean war. What I am hoping is that, assuming they lose in the ISC, they launch ECHR appeals right away and that in her case at least that is treated by the US as an excuse to see the process out before handing her over. But I am way outside my comfort zone making predictions or judgments here. I just don't know enough about the subject.

 

[Grinder]

In essence, this is all about the difficulty (to the point of near-impossibility) of monitoring food transit through from the stomach to the intestines in living patients.

For all these sorts of studies, methods have to be used to trace the passage of food. These typically involve the placing of radioactive or other markers within the ingested food, and monitoring what happens to these markers. Without having an endoscope within the stomach (which would obviously affect the process adversely), it's impossible to know when food first starts passing from the stomach to the duodenum. All you can do is track when the first marker passes from the stomach to the duodenum. And if there are (say) ten markers within the food, then the moment when the first marker is monitored moving from the stomach to the duodenum can only be said to represent the point at which around 10% (or, statistically, between perhaps 6% and 14%) of the stomach contents have passed through to the duodenum.

Strictly speaking, T(lag) always refers to the lag phase before food starts to transit. However, the immense difficulty in measuring this lag phase accurately in living subjects means that proxies for T(lag) have necessarily developed in order to reflect experimental limitations.

If Chris wishes to expolain more fully when he has time that would be great. From his post on the research he did, he is contending that different studies called T(lag) different spots on the time line of digestion. One putting it at the first drop of chyme entering the duodenum and the other at a later point.

As for your explanation of markers I'm not sure the time delay occurs with all types of markers such as sodium acetate or sodium octanoate.

You might enjoy this paper:

Consensus recommendations for gastric emptying scintigraphy

This consensus statement from members of the American Neurogastroenterology and
Motility Society and the Society of Nuclear Medicine recommends a standardized method for
measuring gastric emptying by scintigraphy (GES). A low-fat, egg white meal with imaging at
0, 1, 2, 4 hours after meal ingestion, as described by a published multicenter protocol, provides
standardized information about normal and delayed gastric emptying. Adoption of this
standardized protocol will resolve the lack of uniformity of testing, add reliability and credibility
to the results, and improve the clinical utility of the gastric emptying test​

 

[acbytesla]

It happens quite a lot that countries refuse to extradite to each other. The Irish even refuse to extradite IRA suspects to us but it has yet to mean war. What I am hoping is that, assuming they lose in the ISC, they launch ECHR appeals right away and that in her case at least that is treated by the US as an excuse to see the process out before handing her over. But I am way outside my comfort zone making predictions or judgments here. I just don't know enough about the subject.

If I was the Irish, I wouldn't extradite IRA suspects to you either. The
English should have never invade Ireland in the first place. Come to think of it...what the hell were you guys doing over here in 1812?? LOL

I'm with you on making predictions Anglo. This case has more things going on, than just about any I've ever read about. There are countless reasons for why this case could get thrown out...by everyone.

Also, politically, it really is not going to look good in the US if they extradite Amanda. She has a lot of popular support here...and the extradition process would only result in a magnifying glass on the case and the process in Italy....which would probably result in more support. I think...mind you I think, that this is a big can of worms politically speaking...that no one really wants to open. But hey....I've been wrong before.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inflection point

A paper by Siegel et al., (Gut, 1988, 29, 85-89) uses the following equation: y(t) = 1-(1-e^-kt) ^β. Siegel and coworkers (1988) wrote, "These authors wrote, “T_LAG, which is numerically equal to ln(β/k) and is the time in minutes when the second derivative of the function is equal to zero (Figure 1)." There is no reason to suppose that this must occur when 90% of the meal remains in the stomach. In other words it is a different use of the term.

 

[Grinder]

After looking at as many studies as I can stand, it seems clear to me that the science is not precise when it come to digestion and the times can be affected by a plethora of factors.

It is not known how much she ate or exactly when she ate. The pizaa eating started sometime between 5:30 and 6:30 and the apple crisp eating was most likely between 7:30 and 8. Meredith could have eaten at those times or she could have eaten later than the other girls as reported by CD (unsourced as per her style).

It is known that Meredith returned to the cottage at very close to 9 pm.

Lalli's autopsy showed that nothing was in her duodenum. All other tests for TOD left ranges from 8 to 3 am the next morning.

There was phone activity at around 9:58 through 10:13. That activity seemed off as the calls lacked a country code or were cut off.

The computer at Raf's showed activity with human interaction at 9:26 according to Raf's defense expert and seemingly accepted by Crini.

Since the best information has a healthy young person having GE within half an hour and the long end around 200 minutes (but for a test meal), it can't be said with certainty that she was murdered before 10:30 certainly not before 10 except for the phone activity that can't be explained by Meredith playing with her phone.

Jacket, laundry, heat, book position etc. can't nail down a time for a sure alibi.

One thing we can all agree on is that it could have been past 10:13 and most likely not past 9:45-50.

ETA - If anyone has a better translation of the girls' testimony than my translation by MSFT I'd appreciate the link. The one from Amanda's page is hard to read but certainly gives an insight (or incite) to the defense thinking. They spend almost no time on the meal but ask about how Meredith was dressed, whether they met a colored person the night before and what Meredith had said about Amanda.

They were interviewed at another time before and I'd like to see that as well.

 

[acbytesla]

After looking at as many studies as I can stand, it seems clear to me that the science is not precise when it come to digestion and the times can be affected by a plethora of factors.

It is not known how much she ate or exactly when she ate. The pizaa eating started sometime between 5:30 and 6:30 and the apple crisp eating was most likely between 7:30 and 8. Meredith could have eaten at those times or she could have eaten later than the other girls as reported by CD (unsourced as per her style).

It is known that Meredith returned to the cottage at very close to 9 pm.

Lalli's autopsy showed that nothing was in her duodenum. All other tests for TOD left ranges from 8 to 3 am the next morning.

There was phone activity at around 9:58 through 10:13. That activity seemed off as the calls lacked a country code or were cut off.

The computer at Raf's showed activity with human interaction at 9:26 according to Raf's defense expert and seemingly accepted by Crini.

Since the best information has a healthy young person having GE within half an hour and the long end around 200 minutes (but for a test meal), it can't be said with certainty that she was murdered before 10:30 certainly not before 10 except for the phone activity that can't be explained by Meredith playing with her phone.

Jacket, laundry, heat, book position etc. can't nail down a time for a sure alibi.

One thing we can all agree on is that it could have been past 10:13 and most likely not past 9:45-50.

ETA - If anyone has a better translation of the girls' testimony than my translation by MSFT I'd appreciate the link. The one from Amanda's page is hard to read but certainly gives an insight (or incite) to the defense thinking. They spend almost no time on the meal but ask about how Meredith was dressed, whether they met a colored person the night before and what Meredith had said about Amanda.

They were interviewed at another time before and I'd like to see that as well.

I'm inclined to think it was before 9:30 because that is what Rudy said and the anecdotal evidence. I think the odds for TOD diminish steadily after that from the digestion and the phone evidence and agree mostly with your post Grinder.

 

[Grinder]

I'm inclined to think it was before 9:30 because that is what Rudy said and the anecdotal evidence. I think the odds for TOD diminish steadily after that from the digestion and the phone evidence and agree mostly with your post Grinder.

I truly can't put much into Rudi's guess of what time it was. He didn't have a watch or other time device.

I guess I haven't made the point that we know so little about when and how much she ate and for that matter what state her system was in and add that to the vagaries of the science and competency of the ILE it is hard to frame the time narrowly using the digestion information.

Having said that it has always been clear that she must have been murdered before 11. The phone activity is the strongest evidence pinpointing the time or at least the end time possible.

I think that Meredith was hungover big time and would have come home and laid down for a nap if not just crashed for the night. In her condition she might have just forsaken getting ready for bed and just thrown herself on the bed. The 9:05 murder time makes me wonder what Rudi was doing for the time between then and the phone ping which may well have away from the cottage.