Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

That was the second reference that I found. I somehow failed to save the first which mentioned the tapes being erased.

And now this from 1 day earlier: (Republica_2007-11-14) "Of little help instead 's examination of the frames of the cameras square Grimana. And for the cameras of the parking lot next to Meredith's house, according to the Flying Squad's images do not allow to identify the person shooting."

It sounds like someone did acquire the tapes and looked at them (though I could just be confused by the less than stellar translation job).

Hazarding a cleaning up of the translation:

Examination of the film from the Grimana square cameras is of little help. And for the parking lot cameras next to Meredith's house, according to the Flying Squad, the images do not allow the identification of the person being shot*.


(not the prettiest translation, but I wanted to at least try to preserve as much of the format as possible)

ETA: *referring to the person being filmed, not actually someone being shot with a firearm.

 

[stilicho]

That was the second reference that I found. I somehow failed to save the first which mentioned the tapes being erased.

Are the only references to the tapes in Italian sources? And what are they supposed to be showing us that is missing?

 

[Dan O.]

The ones I've found have all been Italian and none have been indexed by Google so they are difficult to find.

On Nov. 14, the prosecution examined the tape for the night of the 1st and found that there was nothing to support their theory. On the 15th, Raffaele's defense requested the tapes for the morning of the 2nd and was told a few days later that the tapes had all been erased.

 

[stilicho]

The ones I've found have all been Italian and none have been indexed by Google so they are difficult to find.

On Nov. 14, the prosecution examined the tape for the night of the 1st and found that there was nothing to support their theory. On the 15th, Raffaele's defense requested the tapes for the morning of the 2nd and was told a few days later that the tapes had all been erased.

So I guess it boils down to this: What's the issue? And can we get anything in English so we can all understand it?

This isn't the same discussion about the roving mop and bucket, I hope.

--------

Incidentally, am I the only one to notice that AK's forensic expert Carlo Torre inadvertently supported at least one aspect of the prosecution case in his reported testimony? He is adamant about the use of two knives in the assault on Meredith. Unless the victim were bound and the killer decided to use first one knife and then the other, that must mean he trusts that there were multiple assailants. I would bet that if someone as notoriously slow-witted as myself figured that out that a whole room full of observers (and jurors) would have figured it out too.

 

[Kestrel]

So I guess it boils down to this: What's the issue? And can we get anything in English so we can all understand it?

This isn't the same discussion about the roving mop and bucket, I hope.

--------

Incidentally, am I the only one to notice that AK's forensic expert Carlo Torre inadvertently supported at least one aspect of the prosecution case in his reported testimony? He is adamant about the use of two knives in the assault on Meredith. Unless the victim were bound and the killer decided to use first one knife and then the other, that must mean he trusts that there were multiple assailants. I would bet that if someone as notoriously slow-witted as myself figured that out that a whole room full of observers (and jurors) would have figured it out too.

It might help if you read what Carlo Torre actually said before jumping to that conclusion:

Medical examiner Carlo Torre also told the court he believed only one knife was used in the crime, and that only one person was involved in the killing.
...
Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.
...
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."

 

[Fulcanelli]

When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."

Which is a rather lame, not to mention false, argument wouldn't you agree? Nobody 'in history' has been attacked by a group of people where more then one was armed with a knife? All I can say, is Torre hasn't been to many football matches

Of course, football hooliganism is only one example. Gang violence is another, armed robbery consisting of a group is another...the list could go on.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip

It might help if you read what Carlo Torre actually said before jumping to that conclusion:

Medical examiner Carlo Torre also told the court he believed only one knife was used in the crime, and that only one person was involved in the killing.
...
Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.
...
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."

If I were on a jury I would question at the very least the professionalism, if not the probity of any alleged "expert" who would sit on a witness stand, under oath, and make a statement like that.

ETA: @ Fulcanelli. Beat me to it. Darn you.

 

[Fiona]

Torre did not examine Meredith's body, did he?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Torre also obviously forgot Julius Ceasar. Not bad going considering Torre's Italian

 

[shuttlt]

Torre also obviously forgot Julius Ceasar. Not bad going considering Torre's Italian

I have it on good authority that Brutus was an honorable man and only one knife was involved.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Torre did not examine Meredith's body, did he?

No, he didn't. He had to rely on autopsy photos. Neither did he ever in person enter her room or even the cottage. It was all done from his armchair

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have it on good authority that Brutus was an honorable man and only one knife was involved.

 

[Kestrel]

Torre did not examine Meredith's body, did he?

Toree based his findings on the autopsy reports and photographs.

The original report from the medical examiner who did examine the body came to similar conclusions about the size of the knife used in the attack.

 

[stilicho]

It might help if you read what Carlo Torre actually said before jumping to that conclusion:

You're reading the concluding lines. Torre actually postulated an entirely different scenario than Sollecito's expert (Introna?) and it's the newspapers that seized on that one-liner (and supporting passages). He discussed a frontal attack and allowed that two of the cuts may have been made by a second knife.

It's a shame we don't have the full transcript but just news reports. It's clear that his scenario departed considerably from that of the lone attacker sneaking up on a surprised victim. I guess we'll continue to see what we want to see but his testimony probably damaged the defence as a whole.

As Q points out above, the concluding line (from the media accounts) simply makes Torre look ridiculous.

 

[Kestrel]

You're reading the concluding lines. Torre actually postulated an entirely different scenario than Sollecito's expert (Introna?) and it's the newspapers that seized on that one-liner (and supporting passages). He discussed a frontal attack and allowed that two of the cuts may have been made by a second knife.

It's a shame we don't have the full transcript but just news reports. It's clear that his scenario departed considerably from that of the lone attacker sneaking up on a surprised victim. I guess we'll continue to see what we want to see but his testimony probably damaged the defence as a whole.

Can you back up this claim with a citation?

 

[stilicho]

Can you back up this claim with a citation?

Which thing? The frontal attack? The portions of his testimony that eroded the defence? The possibility of two knives introduced? Introna's testimony?

What exactly are you unsure about?

 

[Mr.D]

I have it on good authority that Brutus was an honorable man and only one knife was involved.

Odd. I seem to recall hearing that Ceasar's last words were "Eh? Two, Brutus?" (as in two knives - which may have been the ORIGINAL twoofer CT)


@ TheDaver: It's actually a very interesting thread for several reasons. I hope I'll find the time soon to post a few notes/questions.

 

[Kestrel]

Which thing? The frontal attack? The portions of his testimony that eroded the defence? The possibility of two knives introduced? Introna's testimony?

What exactly are you unsure about?

You seem to be claiming that Carlo Torre supported the prosecution theory of multiple attackers, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up that claim.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You seem to be claiming that Carlo Torre supported the prosecution theory of multiple attackers, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up that claim.

I'm not going to get into this little dispute too much...other then to say, what does it really matter what Torre said or did not say anyway? It's not like this guy is very credible. He's a 'serial defence expert' to coin a phrase, having testified on behalf of the defence in several different cases, each time offering outlandish theories and deservedly, losing all the cases he's taken part in. When you also add the fact that he had no direct access to any of the evidence first hand (via neglect rather then being denied it) in this case, then how can he be considered in any way an authority?

As far as I'm concerned, Torre can say what he likes. It doesn't mean jack.

 

[Dan O.]

So I guess it boils down to this: What's the issue?

The primary issue is the movement of Amanda and Raffaele between the cottage and the apartment. If there were caught on tape the evening of the 1st heading towards the cottage it would be pretty damning. Finding Amanda alone walking back to the cottage mid morning of the 2nd, returning up the street some time later and coming back down with Raffaele would confirm that part of her story.

This isn't the same discussion about the roving mop and bucket, I hope.

That's a good point. Someone walking through the square with a mop and bucket would be hard to miss even if you couldn't make out the face.

And can we get anything in English so we can all understand it?

Google does well enough to get the gist of what's being discussed though they tend to fail on sentence structure, negations and sex. If there isn't enough context to figure it out, post the link and ask for help on the particular sentence. We should be able to find someone that can give a fair translation.