Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I think there is a typo in your post. Unfortunately it may now be too late to edit it.
Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Diocletus
- Start date
- Status
I think there is a typo in your post. Unfortunately it may now be too late to edit it.
I cannot be bothered to go into details at present as bath running, but there are two separate issues here. 1) Digestion. The extent of digestion of gastric contents is poorly correlated with time, and this is generally what is meant when people say digestion is a poor marker of time of death. Nonetheless in a young and other wise well person identifiable food in the stomach suggests time of death within 2 hours of a meal. More importantly is the lack of gastric emptying. This is more strongly associated with time and better studied. Significant gastric emptying should have occurred within 2 hours, whether you take time of last meal as 19.00 or 20.00 death is very likely to have occurred before 22.00 (by two different physiologic observations all be it not entirely independent). But when taken with the phone evidence in addition this makes time of death almost certainly before 22.00.
Last edited:
Didn't that win an ignoble prize? Hey you're famous!
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK having checked the ignobel prize records maybe you aren't famous but it sounds like you deserve to be.
I agree. And I'd like to point out another contradiction in what guilters say about this case and what is reality.
Here's a news item from a "distinguished" foreign correspondent:
Now, remember Mach told us that Amanda had not properly accused the cops of hitting or threatening her because she and her lawyers had not filed some bureaucratic form, and therefore she hadn't really accused them at all, as far as the legal world was concerned.
Yet, here is the continuation of the criminal charges of "continuous aggravated" calunnia, filed by an Italian prosecutor, and joined by a group of Italian police as civil parties, against Amanda Knox, for daring to say in court testimony that she had been abused by the Italian police during her illegal coercive interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007.
Should we place bets on how the ECHR will view this charge of calunnia against the police, when there has been no effective investigation by Italy of Amanda's allegations of police abuse and misconduct?
Fortunately, Amanda is no longer in Italy. But what is the purpose of such charges of calunnia against the police? In a normal judicial system, there would be no case such as this calunnia trial. I think part of the reason this prosecution was launched is to keep the people of Italy in line: they can see that if someone in Italy is abused by the police, and reports it, that person will be prosecuted for calunnia - unless perhaps there is some strong evidence against the police. Had Amanda not been acquitted by the Hellmann court and allowed to return to the US, this trial for calunnia against the police would be a serious matter - she could have her time in prison increased by several years after a conviction. And whether or not there is a conviction does not always depend on the evidence in Italy - we have seen that in this case.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
While waiting for Patrizia Stefanoni's C.V., yet another "motive" is being floated in the Italian press. This piece claims to be speaking for Judge Nencini.
Raffaele and Amanda did it because, "they had nothing to do that night."
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/amanda_knox_meredith_kercher_omicidio_delitto_perugia_raffaele_sollecito_processo_intervista_giudice/notizie/491474.shtml
In this piece, taken from an interview the day after the Jan 2014 re-conviction, the one that got Judge Nencini in trouble for speaking of the case before the motivations' report came out.... we learn this from Nencini:
(Even I think it is a stretch to claim Nencini said his motive was, "because they had nothing to do," Nencini stresses the randomness of the evening's events.)
Still, IMO the Nencini trial was pretty much a non-trial. All the issues Cassazione set for Nencini's court went in the defendants' favour, but he convicted anyway. As this piece says, because the ISC had ruled key pieces of Hellmann's decision illogical - therefore having ruled on the facts of the case, Nencini could not use them regardless of whether or not he or any of the other judges (professional/popular), as the triers of fact, thought otherwise.
Therefore meaning, ISC ruled on the facts of the case.
The very few comments on the piece are telling. One implies that Nencini's decision must be right, because judges are supposed to have IQ's above 160. But other comments stress innocence.
Raffaele and Amanda did it because, "they had nothing to do that night."
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/amanda_knox_meredith_kercher_omicidio_delitto_perugia_raffaele_sollecito_processo_intervista_giudice/notizie/491474.shtml
In this piece, taken from an interview the day after the Jan 2014 re-conviction, the one that got Judge Nencini in trouble for speaking of the case before the motivations' report came out.... we learn this from Nencini:
- the media overexposure of this case has not helped. Jurors returned home and were bombarded with information, hearing different things than in the courtroom
- Raffaele's opting to use his right to silence, with nothing impugned by exercising that right, actually DID, acc. to Nencini, effect the verdict
- the motive was the randomness of the evening; initially full for AK and RS, but when they suddenly found themselves with nothing to do, they participated in murdering Meredith.
- Raffaele's opting to use his right to silence, with nothing impugned by exercising that right, actually DID, acc. to Nencini, effect the verdict
- the motive was the randomness of the evening; initially full for AK and RS, but when they suddenly found themselves with nothing to do, they participated in murdering Meredith.
(Even I think it is a stretch to claim Nencini said his motive was, "because they had nothing to do," Nencini stresses the randomness of the evening's events.)
Still, IMO the Nencini trial was pretty much a non-trial. All the issues Cassazione set for Nencini's court went in the defendants' favour, but he convicted anyway. As this piece says, because the ISC had ruled key pieces of Hellmann's decision illogical - therefore having ruled on the facts of the case, Nencini could not use them regardless of whether or not he or any of the other judges (professional/popular), as the triers of fact, thought otherwise.
Therefore meaning, ISC ruled on the facts of the case.
The very few comments on the piece are telling. One implies that Nencini's decision must be right, because judges are supposed to have IQ's above 160. But other comments stress innocence.
Last edited:
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Besides the fact that the data and their statistical analysis are just wrong (just to say, a few things: one thing is studies about the average gastric emptying, one thing is taking into account that studies have found that in women delay time is about 40% longer than in men; there are studies that found no sex difference, but there are studies that found out huge differences between sexes; that the use of small amount of some alcoholic drinks alters the result by half an hour or an hour; and besides the fundamentally wrong statistical method of analysis of data, which - as I said in other posts - depends on what is already known about the subject, much more than on the ‘average population’ of all kinds subjects, and thus the actual information and percentile to which Meredith refers: the fact that we already know the status of Meredith digestion time after three hours, and this determines probabilities; and so on about the scientific argumentation).
But the real most important argument that makes your “evidence” become less than ridiculous, is that the suspects have no alibi beyond 8:40 pm. A computer interaction of about one second at 9:10 is not called an alibi. Even less an alibi for two people.
Their alibi ends at 20:40, and Meredith came home at about 21:00. This alone makes any consideration based on digestion time ridiculous.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Just wanted to add on this point.
Meredith had, IIUC, apart from three knife wounds to the neck, 3-4 defensive wounds to the hands, and a significant bruising apart from that. In other words, she fought very hard to live.
So the question then becomes, how long before Rudy attacked Meredith, to her being incapacitated on the floor of her bedroom?
How long would it take for Meredith to accrue the injuries she sustained in the assault?
If the time of death were consistent with Rudy's version at 9:20, accompanied by Meredtih's scream according to Rudy, then this is pretty consistent with Meredith being attacked by Rudy almost as soon as she went into her room, or if Rudy confronted her in the kitchen or living area and chased her into her room.
Perhpas Rudy had her from behind, arm across the throat, knife to face/throat, and tried to control her for a sexual assault, and she panicked and started screaming, and that's when went ahead and killed her.
Whatever happened, that all takes time to inflict those injuries, before actually dying. Just saying, Rudy assaulting her within a few minutes of coming home seems likely.
When was the last phone call made to her mother? Could that call have been interrupted, and that mark the beginning of the assault? Would that timing be consistent with gastric evidence, her state of dress, time of call to UK to her mother, arrival home at cottage, and injuries sustained in assault?
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
But what is the evidence they ever left the apartment after 8:40pm?
And there is evidence they were still there in the computer interaction at 9:26pm.
There is no evidence they ever left, other than Curatolo, who you yourself have doubted due to the time of night, and distance to the supposed sighting. (your reasons. I doubt him because he is a homeless heroin addict and serial witness for Mignini who didn't come forward for what, 6 months? - dredged up by the same lackey journalists who dug up the other bogus witnesses, but lets not digress).
If you believe the defendants are accorded the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then why was this case even brought into court? There is zippo that says they ever left Raf's apartment.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think we're playing in the cracks here, although I agree with everything you say.
The short form of the digestive evidence is that given the time we believe Meredith started eating, one would have expected that gastric emptying would already have begun even at the time she was seen alive, just before nine. Therefore the more time passes after nine, the less likely it is she was still alive, with about 9.30 being close to the upper limit.
I think someone several "continuation" threads ago maintained that it was more likely Meredith had tried to phone her Mum as she walked the last short distance to the cottage, but the call was aborted due to the poor signal in these narrow streets. I had favoured the "call didn't go through because she was attacked at that moment" theory, but I wouldn't press it.
It's not too hard to postulate an attack almost as soon as she got in the door, perhaps as she was trying to place that delayed call home, and then actual death being 10 to 20 minutes later. I tend to go for earlier myself though, because there was no real evidence she had been restrained, and I think the attack might have been over fairly quickly.
First hilight is by a scientist, second by a paralegal. This is the core issue in the case, and worthy of a phd thesis. The wisdom of allowing lawyers to rule with decisions that scientists are quite certain are wrong.
Since there alibi ends at 20:40 why do you not let the science rule and agree Kercher died about 9pm and Knox and Sollecito did it then? I agree with the principle that what Massei and Nencini theorised is irrelevant.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I've said quite often, explain to me how Knox and Sollecito could have killed Meredith and left a corpse with all her last meal still in her stomach. Nobody has ever answered.
The pro-guilt folks tend to flip the burdon of proof, saying that Knox and Sollecito have to give evidence showing they didn't kill Meredith, rather than the prosecution having to prove they DID beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet, even when evidence of this sort is referenced, which basically does prove that they couldn't have killed her, it gets denied, or more often, ignored.
How does this, at the very least, not create a reasonable doubt??
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,600
Two definitions of t(lag) revisited
In continuation thread 8 I posted a couple of comments on stomach emptying and the definitions of t(lag). After rereading the articles by Chen and coworkers (2003), it seems clear that their definition of t(lag) was the time it takes for 10% of the stomach contents to move into the intestine. The paper by Hellmig and coworkers (2006) defined t(lag) as the "time of fastest gastric emptying." The latter definition is also how Siegel and coworkers (1988) used the term. The graphs in some of these papers sometimes use a log scale on the y-axis, which can be misleading if you are not looking for it.
In Continuation Thread 11 I posted an additional comment on the subject. This comment walks through the two definitions of t(lag) as applied to the data of Siegel and coworkers and shows that the amount of emptying is different in the two cases.
In continuation thread 8 I posted a couple of comments on stomach emptying and the definitions of t(lag). After rereading the articles by Chen and coworkers (2003), it seems clear that their definition of t(lag) was the time it takes for 10% of the stomach contents to move into the intestine. The paper by Hellmig and coworkers (2006) defined t(lag) as the "time of fastest gastric emptying." The latter definition is also how Siegel and coworkers (1988) used the term. The graphs in some of these papers sometimes use a log scale on the y-axis, which can be misleading if you are not looking for it.
In Continuation Thread 11 I posted an additional comment on the subject. This comment walks through the two definitions of t(lag) as applied to the data of Siegel and coworkers and shows that the amount of emptying is different in the two cases.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Scientific research can be part of a trial.
It means that methods developed though scientific knowledge can be employed of the process of evidence finding in a court.
But a trial does equate to scientific research nor to results of a scientific research.
I hope this subtlety is not too difficult to grasp, because it's a fundamental difference. It's something the pro-Knoxes seems have problems to understand.
Trial and scientific methods of investigation are not the same thing.
Methods used as scientific means for evidence findings are subjected to peer review, but the trial is not something peer-reviewed nor a peer-review process, and a peer-review process about methd is not a trial.
An assessment about the quality of scientific methods that were employed to find evidence, does not equate to putting in discussion the result of a trial.
In some peculiar cases, in theory, there might be an evidence finding obtained through scientific methods that allowes the entire trial to be re-opened and its outcome to be put in discussion; but that's another story. A simple criticism or peer-reviewing of the quality of some investigation methods does not change anything and has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial.
To complain that some collecting of evidence - ballistics, fingerprint or else - used imperfect or low quality, less than state-of-the art methods, or that something is not perfectly scientific, is a completely pointless argument.
And this is true especially in this case in particular (a case based on circumstantial evidence).
You once asked me what is the difference between some piece of "scientific evidence" and the "context". To understand how scientific research, scientific certainty their peer-review on one side, they do not equate with the outcome deduced from the evidence under a legal point of view, let's make an example.
Imagne a simplified case. Not this one, nut another one, an imaginary case much simpler than this with just few elements: a woman is found dead, her body is naked and her clothes are ripped off, she has bruises on her body, and she has small bruises on her genital area.
Imagine a coroner that, from a scientific point of view, makes the following observation: there is no scientific proof that there was sexual violence, since bruises on the vagina might have other causes, not always indicate sexual violence. Imagine that someone presents a statystical table indicating medical results, reporting that about 20% of bruises found on vagina in average have nothing to do with sexual violence.
Based on these scientifical findings, it would be possible to draw the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence of sexual violence. If you apply a cartesian method on the scientific discipline alone, this conclusion is correct.
Under a cartesian, scientifical point of view, it would be correct to say that the bruises on her vagina are not proof ox sexual violence.
But under a legal point of view, the bruises found within that evidentiary context are unequivocal proof of sexual violence.
Because the legal point of view does not depend strictly on the scientific quality of the finding. It depends on the capability of the findings to be consistent with each other within a logical evidentiary picture.
When considered under a scientific point of view, alone, bruises on genital area are an ambiguous finding, they can have more than one cause, they are not sufficient evidence of sexual violence.
An argument based on cartesian doubt however, based on the insufficient quality of scientific evidence alone, will be simply rejected by a judge, because such kind of argument given the contxt would be logically pointless within a legal venue.
To any judge, the bruises on the victim's vagina would mean only sexual violence, and they would be evidence of it. And that decisioon would be logically correct. Because when the element is found in that context, within that set of evidence, it only means that and nothing else, from a judicial point of view.
The value and meaning of each piece depends on its context.
Not only that. There are also other considerations to be made, that I can't say all now. For example involving the modernity or accuracy of instruments (methods, research, experts) employed, or about possible criticisms to this or that witness or merits of testimony or opinion.
Imagine for example that the coroner who is called as a witness for the prosecution to give an opinion about the victim's bruises is found out to be a drunk, incompetent guy who makes scientificaly incorrect statements and gives an inconsistent testimony. Imagine he says: "Yes definitely this is 100% proof of sexual violence"; and then, imagine a defence expert instead brings out a more correct table and says: "Look, it's not true, There is 20% of probabilities that this is not the case".
The fact that the coroner gets discredited as an expert, would that change the nature of the evidence, the judge's decision and the outcome of the trial? The answer is: no.
Even if the evidence is imperfect, and even if the witness was inaccurate and presented an opinion that does not match the truth or the best scientific method, may well change nothing. Would change the point of view of from peer-review in that discipline, but the judge in that trial may have good reasons to just come to the same conclusion, that that piece of evidence has only one possible meaning. Its meaning, under a logical point of view, does not depends strictly on its scientific quality nor on the quality of the witnesses. From a legal point of view, the fact that there is a reasonable doubt on a certain scientific, cartesian aspect of a finding, does not affect its value as a piece of circumstantial evidence.
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
The study in question found no delays between sexes in t lag. I have seen studies where there is a difference in total emptying time and t 1/2, but not t lag. t lag is the variable in question. Could you produce the study you are referring to? I suspect you are conflating variables.
The only study I see on how alcohol affects gastric emptying are measuring t 1/2. Not t lag. Again I suspect you are conflating variables. Can you produce the study in question?
Even if your hypothesis is true, this is only an explanation for why Meredith could have deviated a couple standard deviations from the median. Not why she deviated ~4 to 5 standard deviations from the median, as she would have had to do if she died as late as you and Mignini claim. The far more likely conclusion based on sound statistical reasoning is that she probably didn't actually die 4 hours after her meal. As this is incredibly unlikely, based on probability (using the actual definition of "incredibly unlikely"). Dr. Lalli's analysis and estimate acts as an independent confirmation of this.
Regardless, this evidence is much stronger than a bra clasp that is known to be contaminated and a knife where proper LCN procedures weren't followed. Even if we can somehow infer Meredith did not exceed the 97.5% cumulative confidence interval by 40 minutes, you're still so far beyond the median this evidence overwhelmingly favors innocence.
This is gibberish. Confidence intervals and medians are not "fundamentally wrong" statistical methods. I don't understand why you think you can refute every single professional scientist ever any time a professional scientist has a peer reviewed published result just because said result is unfavorable to the crazy pro-guilt PR lobby. Your side has claimed to refute something like 10 world class scientists now, many of whom are the absolute top experts in their respective fields. And it all consists of published peer-reviewed work. It's pretty amazing if you think about. Have you considered submitting your criticisms to (all) the scientific journals in question?
IIRC the time was 9:20 (but I am willing to be corrected on this). And proof of interacting with a computer at a specific time is about the most solid alibi you can have. They do, in fact, have each other as an alibi as well. But the psycho crew ignores that by acting like they collaborated in a pagan orgy murder. It's pretty convenient actually -- one can use this strategy to ignore any and all alibis by just claiming the alibi was actually involved in the crime as well (with no supporting evidence).
Hey, maybe the computer was in on the sex game murder as well? It can't be trusted as an alibi!!
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I'm sorry, what a load of hooey.
First of all, trials are ALWAYS peer-reviewed: they are called appeals.
And science that is not peer-reviewed (or peer reviewable) should not be entered as evidence as a trial.
What a load of hooey.
Last edited:
This goes to the core of the disagreement about this case.
Name one single piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that cannot be explained equally well under a "they are innocent" scenario.
Please.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Here is a graphical timeline for the events on November 1, 2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/timeline-november-1/
Meredit and Sophie parted in front of the lawyers office (the same office that was broken into and had stollen the laptop and cell phone that Rudy was discovered with in Milan). Sophie went through the passage under the office and to her home a few meters away. She arrives home a 8:55 in time for her show to start on TV.
Meredith's call to her mother was logged at 8:56 by her cell phone only. It never connected to the network. This call was clearly made just after Sophie parted before Meredith could have walked the rest of the way home. That street is a narrow canyon with no direct line for the cell tower signal. It is clear to me that the call would fail due to a lack of signal and not the start of an altercation.
The CCTV camera in the parking structure captures what appears to be Meredith crossing the street headed into the cottage. When the CCTV time is properly corrected, this time is well after the failed phone call. The prosecutions attempt to claim that the CCTV time was fast is not supported by evidence. They have only the second hand hearsay report that the parking lot attendant told the postal police officer that the clock was wrong. They didn't even have the name of the attendant. Evidence based on the prosecutions CCTV time should never have been allowed in court.
- Status