Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

You assume too many things. First of all, we are talking about private camera's (belonging to businesses), which understandably, are focused on the properties themselves rather then the street to pick up people walking by. And as such, if the police examined those tapes and found nothing on them or be of such poor quality as to be unusable then they can't be claimed as evidence, and therefore would have to be returned to their owners and the owners would then in all liklihood (and within their rights) wipe them clean in order to reuse them again for the filming of the next set period (unless you imagine, small shop owners keep thousands of video tapes going back days, weeks, months, years of all the comings and goings from their shop, instead of reusing the same tape over and over).

Instead, you seem to imply, without any basis to support it, that the Perugian authorities had every street under 24 hour video surveillance, then conspired to wipe them clean because they didn't help their case (ie, because they would help the defence case).

In any case, we can dispense with all of that fantasy since even the defence didn't raise any such complaints, claims or accusations during the trial.

 

[Fiona]

This is the same Torre who said there was no evidence of sexual violence?

I do not see where Stilicho says Torre supported the prosecution's case of multiple attackers. I see that he says that the scenario put forward by Torre was wholly different from the conclusions of the other experts.

What he said was reported in ANSA as:

ANSA) - Perugia, July 6 - A knife prosecutors believe was used to kill British student Meredith Kercher is not ''compatible'' with the murder weapon, a Perugia court heard Monday.

<snip>

But Dr Carlo Torre, a medical consultant for Knox's defence, said Kercher had been attacked with a smaller blade measuring around 8x1.5 cm.

<snip>

Torre told the court that whoever killed Kercher had stabbed her from the front as she was lying in a supine position, adding that drops of blood on her chest showed that she ''was not wearing a bra'' when her throat was cut.

He said a persistent carving action had caused the fatal wound.

''Someone went back and forth with a knife in that wound,'' he said.

This is discussed in great detail in Micheli's report. It has also been discussed in this thread. In order for a smaller knife to have made the fatal wound it has to have been thrust in and out of the same wound and it has to have not been fully pulled clear (for it is unlikely it could go back in to the exact same spot): and it has to have not been twisted, either by movements of the victim or the perpetrator. Yet the only plausible way for this "sawing movement" to happen is through movement of one or the other.

The other expert testimony all agrees that she was stabbed from behind while on her knees: this is the opinion of the medical examiner and also of the Introni who is consultant working for Sollecito.

Similarly all the other experts agree that Meredith was wearing her bra when she was stabbed and this is because there are areas which are clear of blood both on her chest and where the strap would have been.

In cross examination Torre said that he could not rule out the double dna knife and he said he found it "more logical" that she was stabbed from the front

 

[quadraginta]

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.

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?

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 don't see where he claimed anything of the sort.

The citation you seek is in the link you provided. That article stated quite unequivocally that Torre's version of how the attack was made differed dramatically from the version provided by Sollecito's expert.

That is what stilicho said in the second sentence of the post you quoted.

The article you provided also quoted Torre as waffling about the possibility of more than one knife being involved.

That is what stilicho said in the third sentence of the post you quoted.

In the fifth sentence he correctly pointed out that the article you provided cites Torre as disagreeing that the attacker snuck up and attacked Kercher from behind. This was how his scenario differed from that of Sollecito's pet expert.

Where does he make the claim "that Carlo Torre supported the prosecution theory of multiple attackers"?

I don't know which is less flattering to you, the idea that your reading skills are so impaired, or that your debate technique is so dishonest.

 

[stilicho]

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'd sure like to read the whole thing:

"The smaller wound is absolutely incompatible with the knife in question," he testified. "For the larger wound, I cannot rule it out, but it could have been made by a myriad of knives," he added in reply to a question from the prosecutor. "Everything leads me to believe that that is not the murder weapon," he said, referring to the knife found in Sollecito's home.

It's the part in quotes, Kestrel. Unless ABC has a different set of rules about quotations, Torre actually said he wouldn't rule out the prosecution's knife. That's a genuine WTF moment unless he's been misquoted.

A good defence expert is supposed to rule things out, not tell everyone that it could be just about any knife, including the one in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. I'd want my money back if I had paid him.

 

[Kestrel]

This is discussed in great detail in Micheli's report. It has also been discussed in this thread. In order for a smaller knife to have made the fatal wound it has to have been thrust in and out of the same wound and it has to have not been fully pulled clear (for it is unlikely it could go back in to the exact same spot): and it has to have not been twisted, either by movements of the victim or the perpetrator. Yet the only plausible way for this "sawing movement" to happen is through movement of one or the other.

Shove a knife in with some pressure toward the sharp edge and pull it out keeping the pressure toward the sharp edge and it will make a wound far wider than the knife. How it works should be clear to anyone that has handled a knife with a properly sharp edge.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't see where he claimed anything of the sort.

The citation you seek is in the link you provided. That article stated quite unequivocally that Torre's version of how the attack was made differed dramatically from the version provided by Sollecito's expert.

That is what stilicho said in the second sentence of the post you quoted.

The article you provided also quoted Torre as waffling about the possibility of more than one knife being involved.

That is what stilicho said in the third sentence of the post you quoted.

In the fifth sentence he correctly pointed out that the article you provided cites Torre as disagreeing that the attacker snuck up and attacked Kercher from behind. This was how his scenario differed from that of Sollecito's pet expert.

Where does he make the claim "that Carlo Torre supported the prosecution theory of multiple attackers"?

I don't know which is less flattering to you, the idea that your reading skills are so impaired, or that your debate technique is so dishonest.

Back in post 2704, Stilicho made this claim:

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.

As I proved in my response, Carlo Torre actually said the opposite. He supported the idea that one small knife caused all of Meredith's wounds.

To my understanding, two knives implies that there were two attackers. I simply asked for Stilicho to back up his claim that Torre believed that there were multiple attackers.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Shove a knife in with some pressure toward the sharp edge and pull it out keeping the pressure toward the sharp edge and it will make a wound far wider than the knife. How it works should be clear to anyone that has handled a knife with a properly sharp edge.

But that's not what the defence were claiming. They were claiming the knife went in and out several times.

And how is it, if the defence are conceding the wound is actually bigger then the size of the knife they claim actually made the wound, they can claim definitively that it was made by a smaller knife? It's simply an 'argument', the only actual 'fact' is that the wound is not a match for the size knife they claim made it, but it is a match for the knife size that was retrieved from Raffaele's kitchen, the knife that has Amanda's and Meredith's DNA on it.

 

[Kestrel]

But that's not what the defence were claiming. They were claiming the knife went in and out several times.

Cite?

 

[stilicho]

Cite?

Why?

You already know that ABC story had to be truncated. Why? Because it doesn't contain the actual exchange with the PM resulting in Torre saying he wouldn't rule out the larger knife. Why would he say that?

My incredulity was at the report we both read where Torre clearly disagreed with others on the defence teams.

I am not kidding or being silly when I think AK's family should ask for their money back from him. I looked for any fuller transcript of the testimony and struck out. Can you locate it?

 

[Fiona]

Cite?

Post #2722

Cite for your own claim?

 

[Kestrel]

Post #2722

Cite for your own claim?

In and out doesn't indicate the knife exited the wound.

As for my own claim, that a knife can easily create a wound larger than the knife blade itself, that is basic knowledge. If you are unfamiliar with how knives work, may I suggest some experimenting?

 

[shuttlt]

In and out doesn't indicate the knife exited the wound.

As for my own claim, that a knife can easily create a wound larger than the knife blade itself, that is basic knowledge. If you are unfamiliar with how knives work, may I suggest some experimenting?

The problem for me is that without a cast/diagram of the wound and associated commentry from the experts in the case to compare to I've no idea what problem I'm applying my basic knowledge to.

 

[Fiona]

In and out doesn't indicate the knife exited the wound.

As for my own claim, that a knife can easily create a wound larger than the knife blade itself, that is basic knowledge. If you are unfamiliar with how knives work, may I suggest some experimenting?

Of course it does not indicate it exited the wound Kestrel: I said as much. And no, I am not going to experiment with a live victim to see how I can make a wound bigger than the knife with no twisting. If that is the kind of experiment you do then you are a scarier person than I thought

 

[Kestrel]

Of course it does not indicate it exited the wound Kestrel: I said as much. And no, I am not going to experiment with a live victim to see how I can make a wound bigger than the knife with no twisting. If that is the kind of experiment you do then you are a scarier person than I thought

I was thinking in terms of experimenting on a loaf of bread or a stick of soft butter.

Perhaps it's time you took a break from this Fiona. You are starting to see demons wherever you look.

 

[Fiona]

Demons? Dont know what you are talking about.

I do know that you won't get any useful information about what happens when you stab a living, resisisting human being with a knife by stabbing a loaf of bread or a stick of butter, though.

 

[stilicho]

I was thinking in terms of experimenting on a loaf of bread or a stick of soft butter.

Perhaps it's time you took a break from this Fiona. You are starting to see demons wherever you look.

I don't understand this either. Are you buying into Torre's theory? He doesn't rule out the double DNA knife. He said it could have been any of myriad knives that made the fatal wound. He thinks that Meredith was slain while supine. He even allowed that others could have been in her bedroom at the time.

This is quite contrary to the other expert, Dr Introna, who stated that the room was too small to fit four people.

Whose story are you promoting? Introna's or Torre's?

 

[lane99]

And AK mentioned a scream and sexual assault to the police before they had the coroner's results...

Do I understand you to imply here that a coroner opined that the victim screamed? How would a coroner know that? A coroner wouldn't be able to determine this- directly- by a medical exam- would s/he?

 

[Fiona]

The coroner did not say anything about a scream: that information came from witnesses who came forward much later.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/report_from_the_courtroom_how_friday_went1/

 

[Fulcanelli]

The coroner did not say anything about a scream: that information came from witnesses who came forward much later.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/report_from_the_courtroom_how_friday_went1/

And of course from Amanda, who claimed during her false accusation that she put her fingers in her ears because of Meredith's scream

 

[Kestrel]

I don't understand this either. Are you buying into Torre's theory? He doesn't rule out the double DNA knife. He said it could have been any of myriad knives that made the fatal wound. He thinks that Meredith was slain while supine. He even allowed that others could have been in her bedroom at the time.

This is quite contrary to the other expert, Dr Introna, who stated that the room was too small to fit four people.

You really are confused. Torre said there was room in the bedroom for spectators, not participants in the murder. Neither one of these two experts accepted the prosecutions theory that three people were directly participating in Meredith's murder in that cramped little space.