No. I sourced:

That complete stomach emptying in 3 hours is normal and goes as low as two
That transit times for the small intestine range from under one to over six, with three being typical but with significant variation possible and the time not particularly depending on the food.
That tlag times for that amount of food are incompatible with the duodenum being empty an hour after eating, let alone 2.5-3.

There was nothing that didn't hold up to scrutiny. The only questions remaining were bits and pieces around the edges, such as if later eating stops release (seems strongly no, but need more research), a probability distribution for bowel transit and complete stomach emptying times to work out some sort of probability, and a deeper search to see if tlag ever went over two hours (everything I've ever found says no, not even close).

The position was basically wrapped up but I haven't done the boring work to make it rigorous.

Of course it's never mentioned before Henry. ETA: I posted this on 11-16-2011, 05:42 PM

My question was, are you arguing that this email never happened?

It was argued in court by Dr. Introna and you are a liar.

so your position is that Knox never wrote that email, and that any references to it in news articles are based on lies?

Once again - when someone writes two contradictory things A and B in a letter you can't use it later as proof that they told you A. This isn't some like crazy witchcraft or anything.

She says she wrote the retraction in her memorandum on the 7th. Were the police immediately aware of this? Sorry if I sound ignorant here, I honestly don't know if this memorandum was a formal document.

You still haven't answered my simple question. I'm not trolling, I'm simply trying to pin you down to a specific position.

For the 4th time, is your position that Knox never wrote that email?

Jesus Christ.

So, you're refusing to state that you don't believe the email was ever written. Cool.

Let's move on to the retraction. Knox wrote this retraction in "her memorandum on the 7th." What does this actually mean? Did she sign a new statement at the police station? Did she issue a statement through her lawyer? Or did she just write it in a diary?

No.

The shills have a mantra that TMB is very sensitive -- it isn't. TMB is actually one of the least sensitive tests used for detecting blood. Luminol is between 100 times and 10,000 times as sensitive as TMB.

The shills like to claim the Luminol was reacting to bleach or a cleaning product. That is impossible because bleach only cause Luminol to fluoresce for a short period after application. Since the Luminol was applied six weeks later it could not have been bleach that the Luminol was reacting with.

Luminol does not react to any other substance found in cleaning products.

You were asked what other substances from the short list of substances that Luminol reacts with it could be and refused to take a position on this. The reason you refused to take a position is very simple -- all the other substances make no sense. If you picked any of them you would sound ******ed which is why you keep referring to generic substances.

You're an idiot. I just posted a list of the transcripts and I'm working though the first one today. Stefanoni alone is 600 pages the entire thing is about 2500-4000 pages. I don't work on this full time.

Sorry man but this is a total farce. If you'd like to pick back up where we left on then let's go back to the point where you quit responding instead of starting with your list. Let me know.

Please source where Dr. Introna states the time of death was the early time you stated.

You've never explicitly stated that you don't believe the email was ever written, that's all I was trying to get you to say so thanks for finally saying it.

I believe it was, but only because I've seen it mentioned several times in news articles and it would be a weird lie for reporters to invent. But it's not important so let's move on!

Again, was Knox's retraction on the 7th made in a formal document? Or did she simply write it down somewhere and not show it to the police?

Mauro Barbadori

I have finished the testimony of Mauro Barbadori who testified about the CCTV video and the interception of a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda in the police waiting room.

1) The CCTV clock is 10 minutes fast. This was determined by the technicians who examined the equipment by comparing the the time on the equipment to the real time.

2) There is a girl on the camera at the time Meredith would have been passing. You can't identify anything. This is useless.

3) There is some accusations about leaking evidence to the press.

4) The postal police car is first seen at 12:36pm which when you adjust it to correct for the clock being fast is 12:26pm. What is believed to be the postal police are seen at 12:48pm which is 12:38pm heading for the cottage and less than 100 meters from the entrance.

5) Bongiorno (Raffaele's lawyer) does ask about using the arrival of the Carabinieri car and using the phone call as a reference point to adjust the clock to be ten minutes slow. The witness testifies that he has not considered phone records when calibrating the CCTV time but instead compared the time of the equipment to the real time when the equipment was examined.

6) They discuss the intercepted conversation. Raffaele and Amanda are discussing a third party which they don't name. They speak in hushed tones. The actual text has been posted in this topic but basically they are talking about a person they won't name that they don't know very well but they need to find out who his friends are or something like that. I'll look for it after.

7) He also discusses his role in searching the cottage but nothing interesting happened with respect to that.

lol, revolutionary. GG cctv time argument!

Saying luminol is more sensitive than TMB therefore TMB isn't sensitive is dumb, sorry. TMB is highly sensitive as you yourself established.

All that this would establish is that the luminol wasn't reacting to recently applied hypocholorite based cleaner. That doesn't establish that it had to be blood. Further as I established it's unusual that we get DNA results here when we don't get a TMB positive if it's blood.

I'm not required to say what it was nor am I refusing to take a position. It appears the luminol itself was misapplied as you noted and they also found luminol hits at Raf's place that weren't blood. I think the reality here was you had keystone cops that didn't know wtf they were doing to be honest. The very fact that they found luminol hits at Raf's place that weren't blood refutes what you're saying.

No has put any arguments forward about those though. Way to start with what isn't being discussed.

He says 9:30-10:30 on page 132. Stop lying.

No.

Of the three most common blood tests TMB is the least sensitive. If you include all the tests including the ones that are rarely used it is in the bottom two. If you like I can produce a chat with all the tests and how they rank. Please stop lying about what I said.

The list of things that Luminol reacts to is quite small. If you look at the possibilities for false positives and remove bleach you are left with nothing that is even remotely possible. That is why you refuse to advance an alternative explanation.

Further two of the Luminol traces had the DNA of the victim. Even the defence has stopped arguing that it is not blood but are simply claiming that it is from independent unrelated deposits -- a very comical argument but the best option given the facts.

No that was not established. What was established is that you have trouble understanding technical information.

You can't apply Luminol incorrectly and get a reaction without there being blood. What happens when you apply too much Luminol is that you dilute the substance which then destroys details and decreases the possibility of obtaining DNA and TMB results.

You were asked for and never provided any sources for the Luminol in Raffaele's apartment that was not blood. If you would like to provide those sources I will comment on them but until then I have to assume you are just making this up.

Do you get paid by the number of times you mention a talking point?

Source or shut the **** up.

I have no idea what you are saying -- is this supposed to make sense?

I am going to read the testimony in whatever order I want. I will discuss what I find in that same order. I will report honestly both for and against because unlike you I am not here to advance a specific agenda. My strategy is to start with the shorter witnesses because I feel the information per page ratio will be higher.

Is it your desire to get TOD to 9pm?

Do you believe after reading it that he was the first to testify about it?

Can you quote this answer? That would be a lie if he said that. Are you going off of the Italian or the english?

Wrong. With their adjusted time, Meredith would still have been at the cottage when the figure is seen on the CCTV.

Yes, they're seen at 12:48 which is actually 12:58, so they arrive right after Raf gets off the phone with 112.

Can you quote this answer? That would inaccurate if he said that. Are you going off of the Italian or the english?

[QUOTE=Henry17;38102905]No.

Of the three most common blood tests TMB is the least sensitive.Again because it's the least sensitive doesn't mean it isn't sensitive. Please stop posting dumb arguments like this, thanks.

It's still sensitive and should produce a positive especially if DNA results are positive.

No it's not and it isn't and when I read things like this it seems even less likely you know what you're talking about

. http://www.imprimus.net/PDF%20Files/...20Analysis.pdf

That article contains some other gems such as : The luminol test used
was found to have by far the greatest sensitivity. Under laboratorial conditions CL was detected from luminol treated stains of the
used hemoglobin solution (corresponding to blood) diluted up to 5·106 times. A
comparably high sensitivity of the luminol test has been reported in other studies [22]. However the sensitivity is probably not as great under the conditions found at a crime scene and here, depending on several factors,
perhaps one may “only” see blood diluted to about 1:10000 [14].

At the end of the day it's simply not true that luminol proves blood no matter what you say.

Those should be TMB positive and they should have been able to prove they were blood but didn't. I'm not sure what you're referring to about the defense argument.

No, you stopped responding to it because you couldn't argue against it and now you're lying.

How convenient to argue that the proof was destroyed by incompetence in the same breath as saying the results produced by incompetence were the proof.

You are lying again. Stop lying Henry. You're getting really desperate, eh? You didn't even know they did luminol in Raf's apartment. You're lost and I sourced it in the Massei report.

Here are the actual results reported by IIP.



It was sourced the first time you and your happy gang asked Henry. It's in the Massei report, go back and find the post, I'm done sourcing things multiple times sorry.

Henry it's becoming difficult to continue to engage in this as you're becoming as bad as Oski at remembering what you're actually responding to.

Meredith wasn't home at 9pm so no.

He was the only person.

On page 22

On what basis did you establish that the clock was ten minutes fast?

I compared it to the real time that I got from the Internet.

That was on cross-examination. If you go to page six you'll find an the same statement made on direct.

The witness had been asked about the Carabinieri car before and said he did not recall it from the video.

Then on page 25 Bongiorno returns to the subject

Bongiorno again presents the same argument to which the witness responds that as he has not examine the phone records and that he did not compare the phone records with the CCTV video.

That is the end of the conversation.

There is no reason to believe that girl is Meredith. That gets stated twice very plainly. Originally it was believed to be Amanda. If you read the questioning one of the lawyers asks if she is wearing pants or a skirt and Barbadori says it is impossible to tell. Someone asks if she has long or short hair and Barbadori responds that it is hard to tell. Someone asks about the jacket and again he can not give any details. Obviously the more important is questions about the face and he says you can't make anything out.

I have no idea why people have said this is Meredith. I guess because it makes good news to have the picture of a girl hours before she dies but there is absolutely no reason to believe it is her other than she is where Meredith would be at some point close to that time.


No. They are seen at 12:48 which is actually 12:38

Here is Barbadori explaining that with reference to the first sighting on page 6.

We first see the postal police at 12:36 which corresponds to 12:26.

239, is it your contention that the tech who checked the CCTV camera screwed up?

And you're basing this on what?

Google translate has this.

I don't think you're establishing what you think you're establishing. If this was cut and dry Massei would have been all over it.

Well yeah, they missed it and the defense sorted it out. It's interesting how Bongiorno talks about the 1:29 as a print out. I wonder if that's a transcript or if she's just referring to the phone call from the phone records.

It's fine if you believe that. What isn't fine is to say that a figure is on the CCTV when Meredith should be arriving home because that would be a really dumb think to say if you think the clock is 10 minutes fast. That's the point.

You can't tell if it's her but you need to decide what time you think it is because you're not making much sense. I think that probably is her and the time is 9:01.

No sorry it was 12:58.

Here is Barbadori explaining that with reference to the first sighting on page 6.

We first see the postal police at 12:36 which corresponds to 12:26.[/QUOTE]

Yes the police originally thought the CCTV was 10 minutes fast but the defense was able to demonstrate it was 10 minutes or so slow. Don't forget that's what the judge decided as well. He doesn't explicitly say it, but that's the only conclusion you can reach considering all of the testimony we know about and his report.