Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Malkmus]

Er...they were experts. They weren't joes pulled off the street.

I'm just wondering if any criminal would ever be convicted, were the bar set where you seem to want to put it...selectively I might add (it's only pit so high for Raffaele and Amanda).

Do you regard as highly the independent experts hired by Hellman?

 

[SkewedView]

Er...they were experts. They weren't joes pulled off the street.

I'm just wondering if any criminal would ever be convicted, were the bar set where you seem to want to put it...selectively I might add (it's only pit so high for Raffaele and Amanda).

They were paid witnesses countered by other paid witnesses, all using an unreliable, soft form of forensics to support the people paying them. Not good debate material, IMO, unless people are just fans of :banghead:followed by :crazy:

As to Massai going with one side over the other, well, that's his job, but it doesn't automatically, magically make his ruling correct - or incorrect - I refuse to try to draw conclusions from a field of forensics that I consider to be one step removed from pure BS, just as I refuse to malign the Judge for doing his job and doing what I won't.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm wondering why one should accept the prosecution's experts over the defense's. It seems as if every suspect would get convicted if you had your way.

No reason...it's the arguments.

To be honest, I've found the defence experts arguments to be at best, weak...and at worst, 'out there'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They were paid witnesses countered by other paid witnesses, all using an unreliable, soft form of forensics to support the people paying them. Not good debate material, IMO, unless people are just fans of :banghead:followed by :crazy:

As to Massai going with one side over the other, well, that's his job, but it doesn't automatically, magically make his ruling correct - or incorrect - I refuse to try to draw conclusions from a field of forensics that I consider to be one step removed from pure BS, just as I refuse to malign the Judge for doing his job and doing what I won't.

Do you have any evidence they were paid? If not, I see no point in continuing this thread of discussion. <modsnip>

 

[SMK]

Really, the small, rudely vocal, perverted lynch-mob contingent of those who believe in guilt make it sooo much harder for the much larger rational contingent to get their views taken seriously. I really feel bad for them, that they have to deal with that.

Agreed! and fully...

 

[Malkmus]

Listen, if you're determined to assume the system there is common law...adversarial...whatever, knock yourself out.

Adversarial is based a 'combat' between prosecution and defence *adverarires. Inquisitorial is based upon multiple parties (defence, prosecution, victims, judges 'debating' the case...it is 'collegial' hence inquisitorial, to question...rather then 'to fight'.

I believe the original point was that your correction of SMK calling the lay judges "jurors" when they are, in your opinion, "judges" is misleading. If one were to go off your explanation one would think these judges are all experts with some sort of judicial training, when in fact, as SV has pointed out, they are just like jurors here - common people picked at random.

 

[SkewedView]

<modsnip>.

Adversarial is based a 'combat' between prosecution and defence *adverarires. Inquisitorial is based upon multiple parties (defence, prosecution, victims, judges 'debating' the case...it is 'collegial' hence inquisitorial, to question...rather then 'to fight'.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inquisitorial+System

Inquisitorial System

A method of legal practice in which the judge endeavors to discover facts while simultaneously representing the interests of the state in a trial.

The inquisitorial system can be defined by comparison with the adversarial, or accusatorial, system used in the United States and Great Britain. In the Adversary System, two or more opposing parties gather evidence and present the evidence, and their arguments, to a judge or jury. The judge or jury knows nothing of the litigation until the parties present their cases to the decision maker. The defendant in a criminal trial is not required to testify.

In the inquisitorial system, the presiding judge is not a passive recipient of information. Rather, the presiding judge is primarily responsible for supervising the gathering of the evidence necessary to resolve the case. He or she actively steers the search for evidence and questions the witnesses, including the respondent or defendant. Attorneys play a more passive role, suggesting routes of inquiry for the presiding judge and following the judge's questioning with questioning of their own. Attorney questioning is often brief because the judge tries to ask all relevant questions.

The goal of both the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system is to find the truth. But the adversarial system seeks the truth by pitting the parties against each other in the hope that competition will reveal it, whereas the inquisitorial system seeks the truth by questioning those most familiar with the events in dispute. The adversarial system places a premium on the individual rights of the accused, whereas the inquisitorial system places the rights of the accused secondary to the search for truth.

In 1992, the Italians reformed their legal system to make the rights of the accused paramount, and took away the power to direct investigations, gathering of evidence, and questioning away from the Judges, handing that power over to the attorneys. These reforms, which are described in greater detail in the link I gave you, make the official (not functional - they're still in the process of implementation) system of Italy a nearly classical Adversarial System, as has been clearly demonstrated in these trials. That the Civil litigants are involved in the Criminal trial is neither here nor there.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Under what conditions? Citation please!

Sure:

"Gastric contents

If the last known meal is still present in the stomach of a
corpse and the time of that meal is known, then it can give
some general indication of the interval between the meal and
death. In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred
within 3 to 4 hours of eating. Similarly if half of the meal is
present then it is reasonably certain that death occurred not
less than one hour and not more than 10 hours after eating.
However, these are broad generalisations and difficulties arise
in individual cases because the biology of gastric emptying is
complex and influenced by a wide variety of factors including
the size and type of meal, drugs, stress and natural disease.

Remarkably liquids, digestible solids and non-digestible solids
ingested together in the same meal will leave the stomach at
different rates. The emptying of low-calorie liquids is volume-dependant
(monexponential) resulting from the motor activity
of the proximal stomach. By contrast digestible solids empty
more slowly, in an approximately linear pattern after an initial
lag period, primarily as a result of the motor activity of the
distal stomach. Non-digestible solids which cannot be ground
up by the stomach into smaller particles are emptied after the
liquid and digestible solids, during the so called inter-digestive
period, as a result of a specific wave of motor activity in the
stomach. In general meals of a higher osmotic and caloric
content are emptied more slowly.

However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.

There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours."

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmed...Forensic Medicine Derrick Pounder 48pages.pdf

 

[SkewedView]

Do you have any evidence they were paid? If not, I see no point in continuing this thread of discussion. <modsnip>.

Expert witnesses rarely work for free. It's a reality of nearly all legal systems. I have trouble believing that you have never heard of this all too common practice.

And please try not to imply that other members are insane conspiracy theorists - it's against the TOS, and lowers the debate to a game of childish name calling.

 

[Malkmus]

Sure:

"Gastric contents

If the last known meal is still present in the stomach of a
corpse and the time of that meal is known, then it can give
some general indication of the interval between the meal and
death. In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred
within 3 to 4 hours of eating. Similarly if half of the meal is
present then it is reasonably certain that death occurred not
less than one hour and not more than 10 hours after eating.
However, these are broad generalisations and difficulties arise
in individual cases because the biology of gastric emptying is
complex and influenced by a wide variety of factors including
the size and type of meal, drugs, stress and natural disease.

Remarkably liquids, digestible solids and non-digestible solids
ingested together in the same meal will leave the stomach at
different rates. The emptying of low-calorie liquids is volume-dependant
(monexponential) resulting from the motor activity
of the proximal stomach. By contrast digestible solids empty
more slowly, in an approximately linear pattern after an initial
lag period, primarily as a result of the motor activity of the
distal stomach. Non-digestible solids which cannot be ground
up by the stomach into smaller particles are emptied after the
liquid and digestible solids, during the so called inter-digestive
period, as a result of a specific wave of motor activity in the
stomach. In general meals of a higher osmotic and caloric
content are emptied more slowly.

However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.

There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours."

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmed...Forensic Medicine Derrick Pounder 48pages.pdf

Meredith Kercher wasn't in a coma. I don't see anything that would elongate the emptying of her stomach between the start of her meal at 6 and when she arrived home at 9.

 

[Allusonz]

Hello, I'm new here.

I'm a little confused as to all the maneuvering over the bath mat print. I mean, a court full of experts went over all the data, all the photos and measurements and concluded it clearly belonged to Raffaele Sollecito. Why such effort to reinvent the wheel?



I'm curious. What 'is' that minimum?

:welcome:

That is a very curious question considering the amount which you post at pmf I would think that the why would be more important

To answer your question though there are numerous sites that can easily answer this question

" It is important to note it may not be feasible to have one person assigned to each duty. It is relatively common for one person to accomplish two or more duties.

The major assignments, as well as corresponding general duties and responsibilities, are set forth as follows:

1.Team Leader
2.Photographer and Photographic Log Recorder
3.Sketch Preparer
4.Evidence Recorder/Evidence Recovery Personnel
5.Specialists
Specialists

The following list provides examples of specialty assistance to be considered (it is not meant to be completely inclusive):

•Anthropologist
•Blood Pattern Analyst
•Bomb Technician
•Criminalist
•Engineer
•Entomologist
•Medical Examiner
•Odontologist
•Surveyor


http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/respon2.html

 

[Malkmus]

Well, they didn't...so it's a non-question.

I suppose that's true if you don't ever look at the prints side by side.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You would have an easier time arguing Bigfoot that you would trying to relate three right feet that glow but don't even have DNA to this crime. I'll pop some popcorn now....

As may be, but I'm still awaiting an answer to the following question:

The prosecution only have to provide reasonable evidence, not disprove every fruitloop-nutjob defence theory that someone puts out there. If I was a defence lawyer, I could argue Bigfoot did it, rather then my client. What then...is the prosecution supposed to go out there and prove to the world that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

Does the prosecution have to disprove Bigfoot...yes or no?

 

[Fulcanelli]

:welcome:

That is a very curious question considering the amount which you post at pmf I would think that the why would be more important

To answer your question though there are numerous sites that can easily answer this question

" It is important to note it may not be feasible to have one person assigned to each duty. It is relatively common for one person to accomplish two or more duties.

The major assignments, as well as corresponding general duties and responsibilities, are set forth as follows:

1.Team Leader
2.Photographer and Photographic Log Recorder
3.Sketch Preparer
4.Evidence Recorder/Evidence Recovery Personnel
5.Specialists
Specialists

The following list provides examples of specialty assistance to be considered (it is not meant to be completely inclusive):

•Anthropologist
•Blood Pattern Analyst
•Bomb Technician
•Criminalist
•Engineer
•Entomologist
•Medical Examiner
•Odontologist
•Surveyor


http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/respon2.html

I'm more concerned with the amount, since your post suggested there was a limit...agreed somewhere perhaps? I don't know, you didn't elaborate. Hence my question. You still haven't answered it.

 

[Allusonz]

Experts in the field have said that the longer interval between crime and luminol use, the better. If you personally disagree with experts, that's fine ... neither here nor there. But if you disagree that the experts are correct, then please provide a link contradicting the information that has been provided

I believe the information I posted was misunderstood.

Are you suggesting that investigators wait 6 weeks before performing luminol testing? What would happen if in this case the crime scene was broken into? Is it being suggested that LE wait 6 weeks to get forensics back so they can find the criminal responsible?

I believe many experts would disagree. I did not disagree how long the optimal time is for luminol

 

[Allusonz]

Jeez, are the misogynists still at it with the clothing obsession? Really, are we supposed to go around in hot weather pointing our fingers at women who dress to be cool, damning them for having their nipples poking through? Seriously, what kind of hypocritical perverts are those people?

I must agree. I am amazed that out of all the things happening that anyone would consider this to be of the greatest of importance. How utterly absurb :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

I'm more concerned with the amount, since your post suggested there was a limit...agreed somewhere perhaps? I don't know, you didn't elaborate. Hence my question. You still haven't answered it.

Maybe this site will help then

"So if a crime happened and LAPD or the FBI was handling it, you would have at the scene, in civilian clothes:

1) a fingerprint expert

2) a photographer

3) a criminalist - The criminalist would gather all evidence for serology (blood people), physical (hairs and fibers, shoe tracks, or anything dealing with shoes), firearms, (unless the firearms expert is present), documents (anything having to do with handwriting analysis), toxicology (any unknown liquids), and narcotics (any narcotics that are found at the scene would need to be tested).

4) If one were needed, a firearms expert would be called to the scene. If a bullet trajectory reconstruction is anticipated, the firearms people like to view the scene"

http://www.mitchpileggi.net/Deep_Background/resources/forensics/crimesce.htm

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe the information I posted was misunderstood.

Are you suggesting that investigators wait 6 weeks before performing luminol testing? What would happen if in this case the crime scene was broken into? Is it being suggested that LE wait 6 weeks to get forensics back so they can find the criminal responsible?

I believe many experts would disagree. I did not disagree how long the optimal time is for luminol

Your question wasn't to me, but to posit an answer. If someone broke in, it wouldn't be a problem (in terms of luminol). They'd have to bleed all over the place. Not impossible, but...sort of unlikely.

 

[Allusonz]

Have you factored in the temperature in the room through the night and again through the day, taken into consideration the lower metabolism after a night of heavy drinking ending less than 12 hours before the murder? All the little details make a difference.

I believe this autopsy was recorded thus all experts were able to review this and some very specific information was able to be determined which is often not the case.

First there was no abnormal pathology. Second the UK friends testified as to the time the meal started and what the meal consisted of. The stomach contents confirmed what was testified to by the UK friends. As well it was confirmed there was no slippage of duodeum meaning that the food had not reached that point. All the experts stated 2 - 3 hours even Dr. Lalli with one stating slippage by 4 hours. There also was no alchohol consumed which would slow the digestion. They continued to watch a movie which actually speeds digestion. I have posted this many times and can again if it would help

 

[Allusonz]

Perhaps "pointing" isn't the best word to use, considering the context.

SV was still able to make his point