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

[acbytesla]

What time did Meredith eat?

That of course is the crux of the problem. Never the less Grinder, even you have admit that according to all the studies...whether she ate at 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 or even 7:00 she was definitely on the slow side of digestive rates. Every minute passing without her meal passing out of the stomach increases the odds of the Time of Death.

 

[LondonJohn]

Its not important Kaosium – it's all nonsense (it always was – even some of the groupies have figured that out)

Nope – see link.

London John must have forgotten, or wants to forget...
– we skeptics are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them

What are you talking about? It wasn't a mistake. We sceptics are not supposed to cast false assertions around

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: the use of the word "groupies" to describe people who believe in the non-guilt/innocence of Knox and/or Sollecito is derogatory and insulting. Stop using it.

 

[LondonJohn]

That of course is the crux of the problem. Never the less Grinder, even you have admit that according to all the studies...whether she ate at 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 or even 7:00 she was definitely on the slow side of digestive rates. Every minute passing without her meal passing out of the stomach increases the odds of the Time of Death.

Exactly so. This is the point.

The experimental data show that regardless of whether the victim's last meal started at 5.30, 6.00, 6.30 or 7.00, the known datum point of the victim still being alive at 9.00 means that it's far more probable that death occurred between 9 and 9.30 than between 9.30 and 10, and that it's virtually impossible that death occurred later than 10.30.

And again, I'd point out that - even though it appears counter-intuitive - a later start time for the meal actually makes it more relatively likely that death occurred shortly after 9pm. If an explanation of this is required, I'd need to show how the normal curve is used (probabilities are defined with reference to the area under the curve), with the effective "start time" for death being placed at varying points on the x-axis (t=3.5 hours for a 5.30pm meal start, t=3 hours for a 6pm meal start, t=2.5 hours for a 6.30pm meal start, t=2 hours for a 7pm meal start).

In short, it doesn't actually matter whether the meal started at any time between 5.30pm and 7pm. For any start time within that range, it's far more likely that death occurred between 9pm and 9.30pm, given that we know that death has to have occurred later than 9pm.

And while this isn't definitive evidence in and of itself (though it does definitively rule out things like the Massei 11.30+ ToD), it can be considered against all the other evidence, to lead to the inexorable conclusion that Meredith very probably died between 9pm and 9.30pm, and almost certainly died before 10pm.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks. The biggest two issues are whether Lalli and the PLE (whoever handled moving the body) accurately ascertained the contents of the duodenum and what time Meredith actually began eating.

The entire pizza dinner time is up in the air as the girls give about an hour spread and at least one source claims Meredith didn't eat much or right away.

If Meredith didn't eat until the apple crisp arrived she may not have started eating until 7:45 or 8 which would make 9:30 - 10 the main time GE would start.

By the way, just for the sake of accuracy, the dessert Meredith ate was not an apple crisp. It was an apple crumble. It's a British dessert that's sort of equivalent to a cobbler. It consists of stewed fruit in a casserole dish (in this case apple), with a "crumble" of rubbed-together flour, sugar and butter sprinkled in a layer on top in a sort of gravel consistency.

 

[LondonJohn]

Its not important Kaosium – it's all nonsense (it always was – even some of the groupies have figured that out)

Nope – see link.

London John must have forgotten, or wants to forget...
– we skeptics are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them

Ahh I see now! It all revolves around the clear fact that you don't understand regular statistical analysis (let alone conditional probabilities), and that you don't understand the concept of building in margins of error in order to bolster and give added credence to your overarching result.

The reason I referred to a 25% margin of error in this one post was precisely because I wanted to show that even if there were factors which meant that the victim's specific situation differed from the experimental situation, the conclusion still stood. I pointed out that in my opinion any differences between the victim's situation and the experimental situation would be far lower than that, but deemed it appropriate to apply an artificially high margin of error simply to be on the extremely safe side.

It's a shame that you couldn't/can't understand the inclusion of an over-generous margin of error as a statistical safeguard, and it's also a shame that you appear to have no grounding in statistics. By the way, are you aware that political pollsters routinely report poll results along the following sorts of lines: "Party A 35.1%; Party B 47.6%; Others 25.4%; margin of error +/- 3%". How can that be, platonov?! Calculating vote shares to within 1/10 of 1 percent, then slapping a +/- 3% margin of error on it?!!!!!!!?!!!!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks. The biggest two issues are whether Lalli and the PLE (whoever handled moving the body) accurately ascertained the contents of the duodenum and what time Meredith actually began eating.

The entire pizza dinner time is up in the air as the girls give about an hour spread and at least one source claims Meredith didn't eat much or right away.

Not really. The length of the movie and the known time Meredith departed place very strong constraints on when they could have eaten. Plus the latest possible meal starting time is the most likely for the same reasons that the earliest possible time of death is the most likely.

If Meredith didn't eat until the apple crisp arrived she may not have started eating until 7:45 or 8 which would make 9:30 - 10 the main time GE would start.

This would be inconsistent with there being 500mL of chyme in her stomach when she died, and inconsistent with the evidence of the people at the gathering, hence it's wildly unlikely.

I'm not saying that it isn't good intellectual exercise for you to poke the digestion evidence like this, but I do think it's terribly unlikely that you will come up with anything that wasn't raised and examined in detail more than a year ago.

 

[platonov]

I like numbers

Exactly so. This is the point.

The experimental data show that regardless of whether the victim's last meal started at 5.30, 6.00, 6.30 or 7.00, the known datum point of the victim still being alive at 9.00 means that it's far more probable that death occurred between 9 and 9.30 than between 9.30 and 10, and that it's virtually impossible that death occurred later than 10.30.

And again, I'd point out that - even though it appears counter-intuitive - a later start time for the meal actually makes it more relatively likely that death occurred shortly after 9pm. If an explanation of this is required, I'd need to show how the normal curve is used (probabilities are defined with reference to the area under the curve), with the effective "start time" for death being placed at varying points on the x-axis (t=3.5 hours for a 5.30pm meal start, t=3 hours for a 6pm meal start, t=2.5 hours for a 6.30pm meal start, t=2 hours for a 7pm meal start).

In short, it doesn't actually matter whether the meal started at any time between 5.30pm and 7pm. For any start time within that range, it's far more likely that death occurred between 9pm and 9.30pm, given that we know that death has to have occurred later than 9pm.

And while this isn't definitive evidence in and of itself (though it does definitively rule out things like the Massei 11.30+ ToD), it can be considered against all the other evidence, to lead to the inexorable conclusion that Meredith very probably died between 9pm and 9.30pm, and almost certainly died before 10pm.

Very Probably sound very vague – any chance of quantifying this ?
Same for almost certainly !

What p values would you apply ? based on your study of the literature.

Oh oh & error bars too if possible

 

[Dan O.]

Meredith's clothing was pushed or pulled up to expose her body. This is evidence that suggests a sexual assault.

The Massei report says "rolled". We know this happened before she stopped breathing. Can you roll two t-shirts while holding a knife and trying to control your victim at the same time? If she is already on her back you have to lift her up in order to roll the shirts. You could prop her buttox up on the pillow to raise the back and allow the t-shirts to be rolled. But then how was the bra removed?

The easy way to get a rolled t-shirt is if Meredith is lying on her back and the jacket is pulled out from under her or she is pulled by her feet across the floor (happens all the time on carpet, not sure if it works on tile). This would have the distinct characteristic of the back of the shirt being rolled tighter than the front. If we had access to the rest of the photos we might be able to confirm or refute that it happened this way.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Massei report says "rolled". We know this happened before she stopped breathing. Can you roll two t-shirts while holding a knife and trying to control your victim at the same time? If she is already on her back you have to lift her up in order to roll the shirts. You could prop her buttox up on the pillow to raise the back and allow the t-shirts to be rolled. But then how was the bra removed?

The easy way to get a rolled t-shirt is if Meredith is lying on her back and the jacket is pulled out from under her or she is pulled by her feet across the floor (happens all the time on carpet, not sure if it works on tile). This would have the distinct characteristic of the back of the shirt being rolled tighter than the front. If we had access to the rest of the photos we might be able to confirm or refute that it happened this way.

Dan O. The Massei report is wrong about the nature of the attack.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a shame that you couldn't/can't understand the inclusion of an over-generous margin of error as a statistical safeguard, and it's also a shame that you appear to have no grounding in statistics. By the way, are you aware that political pollsters routinely report poll results along the following sorts of lines: "Party A 35.1%; Party B 47.6%; Others 25.4%; margin of error +/- 3%". How can that be, platonov?! Calculating vote shares to within 1/10 of 1 percent, then slapping a +/- 3% margin of error on it?!!!!!!!?!!!!

In the pollster analogy you forgot one parameter, LondonJohn.

This should read (note the additional parameter): "Party A 35.1%; Party B 47.6%; Others 25.4%; margin of error +/- 3%, 19 times out of 20."

The "19 times out of twenty" satisfies the normal statistical significance of 95%, arbitrarily assigned as the threshhold of significance.

 

[Desert Fox]

Very Probably sound very vague – any chance of quantifying this ?
Same for almost certainly !

What p values would you apply ? based on your study of the literature.

Oh oh & error bars too if possible

When you convict somebody of a crime, you have to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. The same is not the case when arguing for innocence.

You doing convict somebody of a crime when maybe there is someway they they might be involved.

The evidence is that Amanda and Raffale are innocent. Maybe there is some wiggle room to find that they could be involved. You don't convict based on convict on "could" if you have a fair justice system.

 

[Grinder]

By the way, just for the sake of accuracy, the dessert Meredith ate was not an apple crisp. It was an apple crumble. It's a British dessert that's sort of equivalent to a cobbler. It consists of stewed fruit in a casserole dish (in this case apple), with a "crumble" of rubbed-together flour, sugar and butter sprinkled in a layer on top in a sort of gravel consistency.

A simple and easy to make but oh so yummy recipe. Known as Apple crumble in the UK and Apple Crisp in the US ..

Read more: <a href="http://www.food.com/recipe/ednas-apple-crumble-aka-apple-crisp-82925?oc=linkback">http://www.food.com/recipe/ednas-apple-crumble-aka-apple-crisp-82925?oc=linkback</a>
​

Directions
Preheat oven to 400 degrees F.

Place the apples and just 1/2 of the sugar (3 tablespoons) into a saucepan and cook over medium heat for approximately 10 minutes or until apples begin to soften. Drain them and set aside.

For the crumb topping:
Combine the remaining 3 tablespoons sugar, flour, cinnamon and butter in a bowl. Blend with your fingertips until the mixture resembles coarse crumbs. Set aside.

Coat the apples with the lemon juice and spoon into a deep baking dish. Top with the crumble mix and sprinkle with the brown sugar, and bake until done, about 30 minutes. To minimize oven clean-up, you may want to place foil under the baking dish to catch any spills. The fruit will bubble and will be very hot, so exercise extra care in removing from the oven.

Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/robert-irvine/three-apple-crumble-recipe.html?oc=linkback


It doesn't consist of stewed fruit, which is the only somewhat relevant fact.

 

[Grinder]

That of course is the crux of the problem. Never the less Grinder, even you have admit that according to all the studies...whether she ate at 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 or even 7:00 she was definitely on the slow side of digestive rates. Every minute passing without her meal passing out of the stomach increases the odds of the Time of Death.

Well with those times yes the "odds" a better on the earlier of time. That of course isn't the issue we started with. An assertion was made that the digestive evidence (Lalli's empty duodenum) means that the Naruto 9:26 interaction proves they are innocent. It plainly doesn't.

We have a contention from Candace that Meredith wasn't feeling well and didn't eat immediately when the pizza came out but sometime later. How much later we don't know.

The girls didn't remember when the pizza came out.

Depending when Meredith ate at some point the top of the bell is passed and it becomes more and more likely that GE should occur.

 

[Grinder]

Exactly so. This is the point.

The experimental data show that regardless of whether the victim's last meal started at 5.30, 6.00, 6.30 or 7.00, the known datum point of the victim still being alive at 9.00 means that it's far more probable that death occurred between 9 and 9.30 than between 9.30 and 10, and that it's virtually impossible that death occurred later than 10.30.

Meaningless in terms of an alibi which is the issue. We don't know when she ate. It could have been at eight. Read the testimony of the girls. They have no real idea when they ate and they weren't even asked when Meredith ate.

It is possible she waited until after eight which would make 9:30 about the middle point of GE and that's with the controlled mini meals.

And again, I'd point out that - even though it appears counter-intuitive - a later start time for the meal actually makes it more relatively likely that death occurred shortly after 9pm. If an explanation of this is required, I'd need to show how the normal curve is used (probabilities are defined with reference to the area under the curve), with the effective "start time" for death being placed at varying points on the x-axis (t=3.5 hours for a 5.30pm meal start, t=3 hours for a 6pm meal start, t=2.5 hours for a 6.30pm meal start, t=2 hours for a 7pm meal start).

Now you're argument is wacky.

In short, it doesn't actually matter whether the meal started at any time between 5.30pm and 7pm. For any start time within that range, it's far more likely that death occurred between 9pm and 9.30pm, given that we know that death has to have occurred later than 9pm.

It may be more likely but not a certainty or even a sure thing or whatever betting term you want to use. We clearly don't have the data needed. If she ate at 5:30 (which I'm pretty sure she didn't) what are the odds she would start GE by 9:30 versus if she ate at 7:45 or 8 or 7?

And while this isn't definitive evidence in and of itself (though it does definitively rule out things like the Massei 11.30+ ToD), it can be considered against all the other evidence, to lead to the inexorable conclusion that Meredith very probably died between 9pm and 9.30pm, and almost certainly died before 10pm.

Well it does make anything after 10:30 nearly impossible since the latest her meal could have started would have been 7:45 to 8:15.

Remember this started about the 9:26 computer interaction proving their innocence. Court isn't a betting parlor.

 

[Bill Williams]

When you convict somebody of a crime, you have to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. The same is not the case when arguing for innocence.

You doing convict somebody of a crime when maybe there is someway they they might be involved.

The evidence is that Amanda and Raffale are innocent. Maybe there is some wiggle room to find that they could be involved. You don't convict based on convict on "could" if you have a fair justice system.

I cannot remember if it has been posted here, but in Sept 2013 Carla Vecchiotti (yes THAT Carla Vecchiotti) said this very thing - in Italy it is beyond a reasonable doubt that operates.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fgene.2013.00177/full#B11
​

Vecciotti, through its overturning of Hellmann's acquittals, was the source of criticism 6 months prior to her piece below for refusing to test sample 36i, and not asking Hellmann's permission first. Hellmann's acquittals, in part, were overturned by the ISC in March 2013 for Hellmann allowing the techie to make this decision unchallenged.

So, Nencini's court tested it. It belonged to Amanda.

Yet Vecchiotti's criticism still stands.

It is also clear that the weight of the evidence is a fundamental issue (Gill and Buckleton, 2010), as widespread public opinion holds that if DNA found on the crime scene matches the suspect, then he must be guilty of the crime. This logically wrong understanding unfortunately also extends to a considerable number of scientists, judges, and lawyers. In fact, there is a perception that failure to convict implies a failure of science.

But back on track. Vecchiotti makes an observation about what is really important in this case. Presumption of innocence. Vecchiotti is saying here that Knox and Sollecito were convicted (in 2009) on evidence that was weak, ambiguous (from a scientific standpoint) and inconsistent.

Finally, it is worth recalling a key principle of the Italian criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence: a defendant can only be declared guilty if the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes for which he is being prosecuted. If a single doubt remains, even the slightest, the defendant must be acquitted. Judges who convict in the absence of strong, unambiguous and consistent evidence violate the law (Grosso, 2011).

One final thing. I heard a family member of one of the lost Malaysian Airline #370 passengers complain about the release of technical information from the airline, and why they continue to feel shafted and ignored.

She said that they'd received summaries, only, of technical data including summaries of airtraffic control conversations.

She conclused by saying something familiar to the Conti-Vecchiotti report, and the crtisicim od Patrizia Stefanoni who also withheld things.... with Massei's permission, and despite Hellmann's demands.

The MH370 family member said:

Without actual transcripts of airtraffic control conversations, as well as raw data from technical files, we continue to be purposely held in the dark as to what happened.​

In this case, Italy continues to defy international protocol. Why?

 

[acbytesla]

Well with those times yes the "odds" a better on the earlier of time. That of course isn't the issue we started with. An assertion was made that the digestive evidence (Lalli's empty duodenum) means that the Naruto 9:26 interaction proves they are innocent. It plainly doesn't.

We have a contention from Candace that Meredith wasn't feeling well and didn't eat immediately when the pizza came out but sometime later. How much later we don't know.

The girls didn't remember when the pizza came out.

Depending when Meredith ate at some point the top of the bell is passed and it becomes more and more likely that GE should occur.

Yea ...it kind of does..unless you think the murder was premeditated. If Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at 9:26 and the murder took place at 9:58, that is 32 minutes to get your stuff, walk the ten minutes to the cottage, and what? kill Meredith in say a ten, fifteen minute window before the funny business with the phones began? Add in every minute after 9:00 when Meredith got home, the odds of some of her meal leaves her stomach increases substantially?

Really Grindere??

 

[Grinder]

Not really. The length of the movie and the known time Meredith departed place very strong constraints on when they could have eaten. Plus the latest possible meal starting time is the most likely for the same reasons that the earliest possible time of death is the most likely.

It would be nice if people would read the girls' testimony. They most likely didn't finish the movie from Robin's description (I think it was Robin).

They started the pizza making before the movie but stopped it to eat. They arrived at around 4:30 so had plenty of time. The times are not known in any precise way.

This would be inconsistent with there being 500mL of chyme in her stomach when she died, and inconsistent with the evidence of the people at the gathering, hence it's wildly unlikely.

Why? How many pieces of pizza and apple crisp/crumble and ice cream did she eat?

I'm not saying that it isn't good intellectual exercise for you to poke the digestion evidence like this, but I do think it's terribly unlikely that you will come up with anything that wasn't raised and examined in detail more than a year ago.

I think I already have.

 

[Grinder]

Yea ...it kind of does..unless you think the murder was premeditated. If Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at 9:26 and the murder took place at 9:58, that is 32 minutes to get your stuff, walk the ten minutes to the cottage, and what? kill Meredith in say a ten, fifteen minute window before the funny business with the phones began? Add in every minute after 9:00 when Meredith got home, the odds of some of her meal leaves her stomach increases substantially?

Really Grindere??

When did Meredith eat and how much of what?

I too think it is very unlikely that the kids were at Raf's and watched a video or even started it and then hurried up to the cottage and murdered Meredith.

I will try to say this as few more times as I can - The digestive evidence combined with the interaction on the computer helps to make their involvement less likely but isn't the slam dunk alibi that was alleged days ago.

 

[Bill Williams]

When did Meredith eat and how much of what?

I too think it is very unlikely that the kids were at Raf's and watched a video or even started it and then hurried up to the cottage and murdered Meredith.

I will try to say this as few more times as I can - The digestive evidence combined with the interaction on the computer helps to make their involvement less likely but isn't the slam dunk alibi that was alleged days ago.

Perhaps then the whole thing needs to be evaluated osmotically. The Conti-Vecchiotti report, regardless of its legal status, establishes that DNA evidence cannot support a conviction. For a host of reasons.

Osmotically combined with the digestion and phone evidence, we're getting fairly near a slam dunk not just for not guilty, but for (as Judge Hellmann said) complete innocence.