Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there some information (a link?) about duodenal contents, unrelated to stomach contents, that indicates time of death?

I don't have a link handy (on phone), but one reason stomach contents aren't a reliable indicator of time of death is that the acid in the stomach can keep digesting food after death. Passage of food from the stomach to the duodenum, however, cannot happen after death, because it depends on a chemical signal that is ultimately controlled by the brain. No more brain activity, no more chemical signals. The contents of the duodenum can therefore offer a clue as to how far digestion had progressed at the time of death. If we know what time the last food was eaten, that can give a rough idea of when the person died.
 
The theory was supposed to proof that Meredith died right after 9pm. Saying that there is no single answer then how can this be called proof? We don't even know how much Meredith ate. The coroner gave 2-3 hours for the stomach to empty, and there is 4-5 hours from the moment Meredith ate. Is 4-5 hours enough for a slice of pizza to have emptied from the stomach and passed the duodenum? The sources say that this is not unreasonable at all.

On the other hand, the sources say that a gastric emptying delay of 3 hours is very unlikely unless Meredith had a medical problem or was very stressed for example. When something is very unlikely opposed to the alternative being normal then why is this theory even still mentioned? I doubt we will hear from it during the appeal trial, but we will see.

With all due respect, you seem to be responding to something I didn't say. You claimed food must necessarily spend a short time in the duodenum because the duodenum itself is short. I explained why that wasn't the case. I'm not sure how your response is relevant to that point.
 
I don't have a link handy (on phone), but one reason stomach contents aren't a reliable indicator of time of death is that the acid in the stomach can keep digesting food after death. Passage of food from the stomach to the duodenum, however, cannot happen after death, because it depends on a chemical signal that is ultimately controlled by the brain. No more brain activity, no more chemical signals. The contents of the duodenum can therefore offer a clue as to how far digestion had progressed at the time of death. If we know what time the last food was eaten, that can give a rough idea of when the person died.

According to experts that tried to pinpoint the time of death to 2 hours or 4 hours after Nicole Simpson had eaten, both experts had to admit that the stomach contents (regardless of where they were in the digestive process) were the least reliable method for pinpointing actual time of death. Nothing has changed since then. It is still not possible to identify an exact time of death based on the digestive system of the dead person.

I have provided a link to support this fact. If you have a link that contradicts this fact, one that states that the digestive system and stomach contents are a good indicator or actual time of death, I would be very interested in reading it. Barring that, I think we have to go with what medical experts have stated regarding the unreliability of using the stomach contents (regardless of where they are in the digestive process) to determine actual time of death.
 
With all due respect, you seem to be responding to something I didn't say. You claimed food must necessarily spend a short time in the duodenum because the duodenum itself is short. I explained why that wasn't the case. I'm not sure how your response is relevant to that point.

How is it relevant to debate that stomach contents (in the digestive system) can be used to identify the time of death when medical experts have long known and long stated that stomach contents (at any stage of digestion) are completely unreliable in determining time of death?
 
From the facebook page of Michele Giuttari (I'm assuming that it is okay to quote this comment as it is authored by the owner of the page and is not a rumor associated with an opinion) ... it appears that the claims by Preston about superstition and witchcraft as an investigative tool used by an Italian prosecutor is about to be challenged.

<modsnip>
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michele-Giuttari/265534459526#
 
I was reading the comments below the Time article where this link was posted: http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/disturbing-emails-expose-anti-amanda.html. The article by Nina mentions one of the websites about the Knox case and then this information is about that website owner. I'm a bit shocked at what I'm reading. I had earlier heard rumors about this, but what I'm reading seems to speak volumes about character - and not good character.
 
That article on worldtime.com is claiming that there was no mop and bucket.

Is it extablished that they were found to be outside with a mop and bucket and this was tested as evidence at any point?
 
That article on worldtime.com is claiming that there was no mop and bucket.

Is it established that they were found to be outside with a mop and bucket and this was tested as evidence at any point?

I don't know anymore. Didn't Knox testify that she took a mop from her flat to Sollecito's place to clean up the water spill from the night before? I think that a mop and pail were found at the cottage and I seem to recall that there was no evidence of any DNA/blood on the mop. I think the mop and pail must have been in the cottage, not outside the front door - as was often reported early on in the case.

Lot's of comments about the mop in the first motivation report: http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf
 
Nina Burleigh is mistaken in her Time article. What else is she mistaken about:

From her Time article

"After a month in Italy doing reporting, however, I realized that some of the &#8220;facts&#8221; on Quennell&#8217;s website didn&#8217;t seem to be in the police record in Italy. I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy&#8217;s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood."

From the motivation report (a summary of the court decision):

knox_mop_zps362be135.jpg
 
you are not paying attention to the issue at hand.

The questions is, were they caught standing in front of the house when the police first arrived with a mop and bucket?

We know there is mention by Amanda herself about a mop regarding the sink a rafaele's, we know they confiscated and tested a mop, but were they found with it at the house when the police arrived?

That is the whole point....not that a mop exists or is even mentioned but the "damning" evidence that they were standing out in front of the cottage with a mop and bucket when suddenly surprised by police...or so the prosecution would tell you.
 
you are not paying attention to the issue at hand.

The questions is, were they caught standing in front of the house when the police first arrived with a mop and bucket?

We know there is mention by Amanda herself about a mop regarding the sink a rafaele's, we know they confiscated and tested a mop, but were they found with it at the house when the police arrived?

That is the whole point....not that a mop exists or is even mentioned but the "damning" evidence that they were standing out in front of the cottage with a mop and bucket when suddenly surprised by police...or so the prosecution would tell you.

Evidently I am paying attention as I knew immediately that Nina was mistaken and was able to very quickly locate Italian court documents that describe the mop information.

Nina Burleigh claims that the mop and bucket were never tested and implies that they didn't exist. They do exist, were tested and "nothing particular was found." It is unclear whether the mop and bucket were found in the cottage, or at the front door, and Nina cannot state that they were not at the door. This murder occurred six years ago and, without doubt, some information is no longer available through online news sites. She seems to want to discredit the owner of a website that supports the victim by claiming that his information regarding the murder is unreliable.
 
Evidently I am paying attention as I knew immediately that Nina was mistaken and was able to very quickly locate Italian court documents that describe the mop information.

Nina Burleigh claims that the mop and bucket were never tested and implies that they didn't exist. They do exist, were tested and "nothing particular was found." It is unclear whether the mop and bucket were found in the cottage, or at the front door, and Nina cannot state that they were not at the door. This murder occurred six years ago and, without doubt, some information is no longer available through online news sites. She seems to want to discredit the owner of a website that supports the victim by claiming that his information regarding the murder is unreliable.

I seem to remember a video taken during the evidence collection, which showed the collection of the mop.

This video sticks in my mind because the technician (Patricia Stafanoni?) takes the mop out of the closet, takes gift wrap out of the same closet to wrap around the mop, and then walks through the cottage, including Meredith's room, with the mop in her hands.

To me, it appears that Burleigh is right about the mop not being at the front door, but is wrong about it never being tested. It appears to have been tested and found to have no use at evidence.

If I have time later, I will look for the video.
 
Nina Burleigh is mistaken in her Time article. What else is she mistaken about:

From her Time article

"After a month in Italy doing reporting, however, I realized that some of the “facts” on Quennell’s website didn’t seem to be in the police record in Italy. I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy’s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood."

From the motivation report (a summary of the court decision):

knox_mop_zps362be135.jpg
Exactly. It does not state anywhere that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket. So therefore that is one example of the made-up facts found at TJMK.
 
I was reading the comments below the Time article where this link was posted: http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/disturbing-emails-expose-anti-amanda.html. The article by Nina mentions one of the websites about the Knox case and then this information is about that website owner. I'm a bit shocked at what I'm reading. I had earlier heard rumors about this, but what I'm reading seems to speak volumes about character - and not good character.

Otto,

I personally dislike talking about personal issues about anyone commenting on the case. YMMV, and all that.
 
Exactly. It does not state anywhere that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket. So therefore that is one example of the made-up facts found at TJMK.

We don't know where the mop and bucket were found and many media links from six years ago are no longer available, so we can't know that it was not reported that the mop and bucket were at the front door. What it says to me is that Nina Burleigh is unclear on the facts and apparently has not read the motivation report. There are several instances where the mop is mentioned in the report, and it is clear that the mop was tested for evidence, yet Burleigh implies that the mop and bucket did not exist and states that they were not tested for evidence.
 
We don't know where the mop and bucket were found and many media links from six years ago are no longer available, so we can't know that it was not reported that the mop and bucket were at the front door. What it says to me is that Nina Burleigh is unclear on the facts and apparently has not read the motivation report. There are several instances where the mop is mentioned in the report, and it is clear that the mop was tested for evidence, yet Burleigh implies that the mop and bucket did not exist and states that they were not tested for evidence.

Firstly, there is no mention of a bucket, except in certain people's imaginations. Secondly, are you are operating under the premise of "if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it did." This is precisely why the colpevosti are not taken seriously; they use backwards logic.
 
Firstly, there is no mention of a bucket, except in certain people's imaginations. Secondly, are you are operating under the premise of "if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it did." This is precisely why the colpevosti are not taken seriously; they use backwards logic.

Did Nina Burleigh, in her most recent article criticizing forums related to Meredith Kercher's murder, imply that there was no mop and that it was not tested? A mop and bucket are mentioned in the summary of the court verdict. The report specifically mentions the testing of the mop.

I know what premises I am using, and I know that the mop and bucket were part of the evidence collected at the scene of the murder. It was reported early on that the mop and bucket were found at the door of the cottage. Today, it is difficult to prove that. It is not reasonable to conclude that because links related to a murder that happened six years ago are no longer available, the content from those links must have been imagined. It's rather bizarre that anyone would select that simple point: whether the mop and bucket were at the door or in the closet, as a focus for attempting to discredit a victim based website.
 
Did Nina Burleigh, in her most recent article criticizing forums related to Meredith Kercher's murder, imply that there was no mop and that it was not tested? A mop and bucket are mentioned in the summary of the court verdict. The report specifically mentions the testing of the mop.

I know what premises I am using, and I know that the mop and bucket were part of the evidence collected at the scene of the murder. It was reported early on that the mop and bucket were found at the door of the cottage. Today, it is difficult to prove that. It is not reasonable to conclude that because links related to a murder that happened six years ago are no longer available, the content from those links must have been imagined. It's rather bizarre that anyone would select that simple point: whether the mop and bucket were at the door or in the closet, as a focus for attempting to discredit a victim based website.

What is bizarre is that a mop, which was initially brought up by the defendants in their recounting of events, is collected from a closet and wrapped in wrapping paper from the scene of the crime.

What is bizarre is that this becomes a story of the defendants being "caught" outside with a mop and bucket to purposely imply a guilty act and is presented on a website claiming to be for True Justice.

What is also bizarre is that said website, which has full access to the court reports, does not correct such misinformation. Instead, you want to claim it might have been reported by some tabloid at some point, which can't be located anymore, so therefore it should be considered a fact.

We won't even get into your claim of that website being a victim-based website, because then we would have to disclose exactly what it has accomplished on behalf of victims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
1,572
Total visitors
1,741

Forum statistics

Threads
590,033
Messages
17,929,207
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top