Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Anyone have any idea how long that dark color car was parked in the driveway? It had to have been there after the broke down car left, and there is reason to believe it was there before that car broke down. Which makes me wonder was it there when Meredith showed up at the apartment.

_________________

I can't answer your question Chris. Candace Dempsey, a couple years ago, posted a link to a Corriere Dell'Umbria story which was translated by Damian. Her link is HERE Post #197878 Scroll Down The story is supposed to address this issue, but my password to the linked translated article is "Invalid."

///

 

[Dan O.]

To all,

I would like to address one other attack on Amanda’s character that has shown up here and elsewhere, the charge that she brought home “strange men” to the girls’ flat, with the not too subtle implication that the men were sexual partners. There was only one man whom Meredith thought was strange, and that was Juve, who worked at Le Chic and had a girlfriend (Murder in Italy, pp. 110-116). I hope that we do not have to whack this mole again.

You shouldn't try to downplay all the incidences. There was at least one man that spent the night. What's worse is that the other girls weren't warned but had to discover for them selves when the the guy was found wandering around the cottage in his underwere the next morning.

 

[Chris C]

You shouldn't try to downplay all the incidences. There was at least one man that spent the night. What's worse is that the other girls weren't warned but had to discover for them selves when the the guy was found wandering around the cottage in his underwere the next morning.

So Amanda is the only female to have sex in that apartment? Also, I thought the strange man was a friend of Meredith's boyfriend. I could be wrong, though I thought Meredith had met him before. Also, if it upset the roommates so badly what makes everyone think that Knox returned to the apartment with Sollecito the night of the murder. After if she was gonna catch grief over having sex in the apartment, wouldn't it make sense to stay at Sollecito's that night.

 

[loverofzion]

Welllll, I will venture to say with 100% certainty that she was not being serious. Have you seen the photo?

The irony in this case is from the point of view that nothing could be more ridiculous than Amanda posing as a Nazi. It's kind of like those photo-op displays they have at fairs, where a large man stands behind a board and puts his head in an opening that makes it look like he is a tiny woman in a bikini. It's funny because it's silly, just like someone anachronistically sitting behind an automatic weapon is silly.

It can always be argued that anything about war in general is not a laughing matter, although the film "Dr. Strangelove" proves it can be, when handled ironically.

This subject is ripe for an interesting discussion about persecution through history, but I think it is sufficient to say that when people criticize Amanda in this case, they are just looking for something to criticize.

The photo in question was taken in Graz Austria and she inscribed it on her myspace page as from "the Nazi".

Sorry Mary, most people would not share your sense of humor , or if you prefer irony.

And for the record I am a white woman.

 

[loverofzion]

Oh, nice snarky comment with the little smiley face at the end. What tact!

I read something about a Holocause museum as well, if it is incorrect, perhaps it was an innocent mistake and not Loverofzion "making things up"?



Are you referring to this Colonel Garofano?:



Im glad you seem to consider him a credible source! (see what I did there, snarky comment plus smiley face! Im fitting in more and more by the day!)

The museum was in Graz, Austria, AK signed off it as "the Nazi", her sister said it was a joke.

Draw your own conclusions about the humor.

 

[Chris C]

And for the record I am a white woman.

Your Caucasian or Jewish? I mean if someone was to look at your Screen Name most would assume you are jewish. Since Zion can be used as a reference to Mt. Zion in Israel or Zion can be used as a reference for the Kindom of Israel. Either way Zion is a clear reference to Jewish background, and you seem to be attacking Knox because you view her as a nazi.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A couple of further comments on the "you're not a pathologist" mole, in the hope that if we hammer it down hard enough this time it will stay down for a while:

I think I've explained clearly more than once why this talking point is stupid, and reflective of serious collective ignorance about how science (and for that matter tertiary education) work.

However there is more to it than merely being stupid. This argument (as I will explain) is also dishonest, and also hypocritical.

It is hypocritical because guilters, often the same ones putting forward the "you're not a pathologist!" talking point are quite happy to position themselves as self-educated experts on interrogation psychology, DNA forensics, police procedure, how glass breaks under the impact of a slow-moving projectile and everything else under the sun pertaining to the case. It's only on this one particular issue, where they very much do not like the results of the research we have done, that they get all relativist on us and start saying "None of us can really know anything, we have to rely on the experts, and by that I mean that subset of experts whose statements taken out of context can be taken to imply that t(lag) can be five and a half hours. Not the experts stating very explicitly and in context that this is incredibly improbable".

If you guilters want to run the "You're not a pathologist" meme at least be consistent about it. Stop posting your views on any subject which you are not personally qualified to speak about as an expert witness. After all, you can have nothing to say about such topics.

Perhaps more importantly it's a dishonest argument unless the people putting it forward would genuinely switch immediately to the pro-innocence side based on the stomach contents evidence if only a qualified pathologist posted that evidence. My amateur-psychological, non-conclusive opinion at this time is that this is about as likely as Vladimir Putin winning the Miss America pageant.

One of my old school friends happens to be a pathologist. He doesn't do autopsies, it must be said, he spends his time looking at microscope slides that get sent to the private lab where he works. So why his job should become the be-all and end-all of authority on this matter to the guilters is a bit puzzling, but then again they probably don't have a very clear idea about what a pathologist is anyway. My guess is that all they know about it is that the people who do autopsies are pathologists.

I haven't spoken to him about the case because he's got a new kid and so he doesn't get out of the house much lately, so I just haven't seen him. However if I did have a chat with him and he agreed with me and I posted that, or for that matter if he got himself a forum ID and posted that agreement here, does anyone really think that the guilters would all do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and start spamming blogs with posts about how the Massei report is a load of old tosh and that the autopsy evidence combined with the computer evidence proves that Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent?

If you believe that this is exactly what they would do, then you can't view the "you're not a pathologist" argument as dishonest. I do not find such an outcome remotely plausible. Based on their response to other experts in relevant fields who have spoken out against the verdict in the Knox case, they'd just find some reason to ignore any expert opinions that don't fit with their existing beliefs.

So let's never see this mole pop up again. It's a stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and dishonest argument and it should damned well stay in its hole from now on.

 

[katy_did]

However, I see one reason more. On the bed sheet there is a print left by a knife showing a blade about 12-13 cm long. This print shows a blade not entirely compatible with the right wound (1,8 mm at 4 centmetres) and anyway too long to fit with Torre and Patumi’s theories of an 8,5 cm blade.

Not sure I agree here. It's very difficult to get a millimetre precise length and width for the print on the bed sheet, although of course it's possible to get a rough idea, and certainly to conclude it wasn't made with the kitchen knife. Roughly 1.5mm at 4cm from the tip, and 1.8mm at 4cm from the tip, don't sound sufficiently different to me that we can rule out the knife which made the print also having made the wound. Measuring the knife print isn't like measuring a knife blade, especially taking into account the absorbent surface on which it was made; it can only be an approximate measurement. And that's without taking into account the fact that, given the elastic nature of the skin, a knife can make a wound slightly smaller than the width of the blade (because the skin may spring back slightly).

Also, weren't there two possible lengths for the knife print, depending on whether you considered a particular mark to be from the blade or the handle? Was the length you mention the bigger length, or the smaller one? I have a feeling it was the former.

 

[Mary_H]

The museum was in Graz, Austria, AK signed off it as "the Nazi", her sister said it was a joke.

Draw your own conclusions about the humor.

Thank you for clearing that up. I presume this supersedes your previous post (below), as there is not a Holocaust Museum in Graz:

"She was photographed in the Holocaust museum with her laughinglyl holding a machine gun (okay you can't convict anyone for their lack of sensitivity and compassion) with a very large bag easily able to contain a kitchen knife.so there really is nothing funny about your exaggeration; more fodder for the nonsense pile again."

 

[Machiavelli]

Not sure I agree here. It's very difficult to get a millimetre precise length and width for the print on the bed sheet, although of course it's possible to get a rough idea, and certainly to conclude it wasn't made with the kitchen knife. Roughly 1.5mm at 4cm from the tip, and 1.8mm at 4cm from the tip, don't sound sufficiently different to me that we can rule out the knife which made the print also having made the wound. (....)

Also, weren't there two possible lengths for the knife print, depending on whether you considered a particular mark to be from the blade or the handle? Was the length you mention the bigger length, or the smaller one? I have a feeling it was the former.

Sorry, I mean 18mm, versus the declared 12-15 mm of the wound.
You have the "feeling" it was "the smaller" (but what size?) and you don't feel it a "sufficiently" different.
The figure around 18mm is only the smallest outline of the print. There is also a larger outline that could be considered.
And in general, the question is not only what allows us to completely "rule out" by airtight demonstration: evidence like the print on the bed have also a value as suggestion and indication. This print is one of the elements, consistent with some other elements as well suggesting two different assaulters/means of assault.

But for the lenght he smaller possibility is 12 cm.
No way the "smaller" blade could be a 8,5 cm one, even cutting off the peculiar mark. Katy, rather than just remember there was a peculiar mark, you ought try to remember the centimetres that distance the point to ths peculiar mark. This distance is not 8,5 cm. The minimum for this print is 12 cm, far beyond the 8,5 needed in Patumi /Torre / Introna theories.
But 12 cm is the smalest. In the considering "biggest" possibility, you find the blade could be even 17,5 cm as the kitchen knife.

 

[Machiavelli]

You also could try to figure out what it would really mean, in terms of strenght employed and odd movement, to try to produce a long cut using a small knife with an 8 cm blade entirely plunged into tissues. I don't believe this. Both mechanically and dynamically. And I see it even less consistent with the other wounds, and even less consistent with further elements like the physical analysis of the larger wound.

All elements mentioned in the previous posts should be considered altogether as in a picture.
The shallow depth of the other wounds, the inconsistency of defensive theories, the print on the materass, the features of the larger wound, the oddity of the other neck wounds, the lack of defensive wounds on the victim's hands, the blows on two different sides of the neck (an assaulter would have to change hand?), with the vost violent blow being on the left side (is the attacker left handed? how was he holding the weapon?).

 

[katy_did]

Sorry, I mean 18mm, versus the declared 12-15 mm of the wound.
You have the "feeling" it was "the smaller" (but what size?) and you don't feel it a "sufficiently" different.
The figure around 18mm is only the smallest outline of the print. There is also a larger outline that could be considered.

No, you're conflating two different things here (sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear). The difference I felt wasn't sufficient to rule out that knife having made the wound, was the rough 3mm width difference you mentioned between the wound and the knife print. The measurements of each are inaccurate to some degree: the wound perhaps less so, but there's still that possible inaccuracy since after all, we're measuring the wound left by the knife, not the knife itself. And the knife print certainly so, since it's not overly distinct (to the point some have argued it isn't from a knife!) and with it being on absorbent material, would have tended to 'spread' anyway.

In the end, although we can make a rough assessment of whether or not the knife which made the knife print could have made that particular wound - and can certainly rule out the kitchen knife on both counts - I don't believe it's possible to get a millimeter precise measurement here. After all, in both cases we're not dealing with the knife itself, but rather with a print/wound made by the knife. I certainly don't think we can rule out the possibility that the knife which made the knife print also made the wound.

But for the lenght he smaller possibility is 12 cm.
No way the "smaller" blade could be a 8,5 cm one, even cutting off the peculiar mark. Katy, rather than just remember there was a peculiar mark, you ought try to remember the centimetres that distance the point to ths peculiar mark. This distance is not 8,5 cm. The minimum for this print is 12 cm, far beyond the 8,5 needed in Patumi /Torre / Introna theories.
But 12 cm is the smalest. In the considering "biggest" possibility, you find the blade could be even 17,5 cm as the kitchen knife.

You might be right on the two different possible lengths of the knife; I had a quick look through but couldn't actually find a reference for it. Do you know which mark it is that was disputed? I assumed 12cm was the larger length based on the photos on PMF which had the measurements, and it looked there like 12cm would reach to the full length of the print; there didn't seem to be any other possible mark that could made the blade of the knife appear longer than that. This is the picture I was looking at - you can see that the furthest bloody mark is at 8cm (i.e. 12cm), while even at 15cm the measurement is beyond the limits of the image (assuming that is the full image, of course).

Interestingly, looking at the image of the knife print without the overlay, it looks to me very much like two prints made by quite a small knife, not one. There definitely seem to be two separate tips and two lines for the blade. Perhaps it was moved, which would confuse things further!

 

[katy_did]

You also could try to figure out what it would really mean, in terms of strenght employed and odd movement, to try to produce a long cut using a small knife with an 8 cm blade entirely plunged into tissues. I don't believe this. Both mechanically and dynamically. And I see it even less consistent with the other wounds, and even less consistent with further elements like the physical analysis of the larger wound.

All elements mentioned in the previous posts should be considered altogether as in a picture.
The shallow depth of the other wounds, the inconsistency of defensive theories, the print on the materass, the features of the larger wound, the oddity of the other neck wounds, the lack of defensive wounds on the victim's hands, the blows on two different sides of the neck (an assaulter would have to change hand?), with the vost violent blow being on the left side (is the attacker left handed? how was he holding the weapon?).

Or, he might have initially been in front of her, and then moved behind her. Or he might have temporarily taken the knife from her throat in order to cut the bra strap, and then held the knife with his left hand when he replaced it at her throat (or vice versa). Perhaps Guede needed his dominant hand to carry out the assault, and so held the knife in his left. Guede's 'clue' that the attacker was left-handed is quite possibly an indication that he - or the person who made the wounds - was holding it in their left hand. Perhaps this might even be one reason why some of the wounds were made, if the attacker was right-handed but holding the knife clumsily in his left. There are a lot of possibilities which would explain it.

As it happens, I think I probably agree that it isn't necessary the knife was used to its full extent in the biggest wound (though the bruising would need to be explained, if that's not the case). That argument relies on the theory that the attacker intended to kill, and hence would've stabbed as hard as I could. I'm not convinced Guede (who in my theory would be the one using the knife, of course) intended to kill Meredith, so in that sense I don't think the knife had to be used to its fullest extent.

 

[LondonJohn]

A couple of further comments on the "you're not a pathologist" mole, in the hope that if we hammer it down hard enough this time it will stay down for a while:

I think I've explained clearly more than once why this talking point is stupid, and reflective of serious collective ignorance about how science (and for that matter tertiary education) work.

However there is more to it than merely being stupid. This argument (as I will explain) is also dishonest, and also hypocritical.

It is hypocritical because guilters, often the same ones putting forward the "you're not a pathologist!" talking point are quite happy to position themselves as self-educated experts on interrogation psychology, DNA forensics, police procedure, how glass breaks under the impact of a slow-moving projectile and everything else under the sun pertaining to the case. It's only on this one particular issue, where they very much do not like the results of the research we have done, that they get all relativist on us and start saying "None of us can really know anything, we have to rely on the experts, and by that I mean that subset of experts whose statements taken out of context can be taken to imply that t(lag) can be five and a half hours. Not the experts stating very explicitly and in context that this is incredibly improbable".

If you guilters want to run the "You're not a pathologist" meme at least be consistent about it. Stop posting your views on any subject which you are not personally qualified to speak about as an expert witness. After all, you can have nothing to say about such topics.

Perhaps more importantly it's a dishonest argument unless the people putting it forward would genuinely switch immediately to the pro-innocence side based on the stomach contents evidence if only a qualified pathologist posted that evidence. My amateur-psychological, non-conclusive opinion at this time is that this is about as likely as Vladimir Putin winning the Miss America pageant.

One of my old school friends happens to be a pathologist. He doesn't do autopsies, it must be said, he spends his time looking at microscope slides that get sent to the private lab where he works. So why his job should become the be-all and end-all of authority on this matter to the guilters is a bit puzzling, but then again they probably don't have a very clear idea about what a pathologist is anyway. My guess is that all they know about it is that the people who do autopsies are pathologists.

I haven't spoken to him about the case because he's got a new kid and so he doesn't get out of the house much lately, so I just haven't seen him. However if I did have a chat with him and he agreed with me and I posted that, or for that matter if he got himself a forum ID and posted that agreement here, does anyone really think that the guilters would all do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and start spamming blogs with posts about how the Massei report is a load of old tosh and that the autopsy evidence combined with the computer evidence proves that Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent?

If you believe that this is exactly what they would do, then you can't view the "you're not a pathologist" argument as dishonest. I do not find such an outcome remotely plausible. Based on their response to other experts in relevant fields who have spoken out against the verdict in the Knox case, they'd just find some reason to ignore any expert opinions that don't fit with their existing beliefs.

So let's never see this mole pop up again. It's a stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and dishonest argument and it should damned well stay in its hole from now on.

Somehow I don't see this particular mole staying below ground for long. And, as you say, it merely serves to show how some people don't understand the principle of scientific research and accumulated/iterated knowledge, and how in the modern world anyone can gain access to this knowledge without having to be a fully paid-up member of that particular community.

Like you, I'd be perfectly happy to modify or change my opinion on Meredith's time of death, if someone could find credible scientific evidence which showed that a meal consumed at around 6.30pm could still be fully present (and, indeed, not yet fully broken down) within the stomach some five hours later. But, like you, my knowledge of current and historical scientific thinking in this area leads me to believe that such evidence is very unlikely to be forthcoming. And that's why I strongly believe that Meredith was almost certainly dead by 10pm, and most likely by 9.30pm. It's not hocus-pocus or smoke-and-mirrors. It's the application of easily-discoverable scientific knowledge.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have re-checked the measurements based on your linked picture (that was not the picture I used but has the same use).
These measurements are all *without* counting the mark on the left ion the total lenght.
What I see is that the minimum lenght of the blade would be at least 9,8/10 cm (however i think it is not logical to consider this as a possible lenght, because there is a second larger outline and there would be a second "handle" mark to place).
The longer outline (always without counting the left mark) is beyond 11,4 cm.

The "bruising" is simply an extension of the 1,5 cm deep wound. This wound has a very narrow angle with the skin, and shows a first "touch" of the blade, a superficial blow with an erroneous direction that could have cause the blade to slip away.
This bruise is not due to a handle, it belongs t the small wound - more properly a point injure - it is irregular and finds itself only on one margin of the main wound.

 

[Chris C]

Anyone know where a complete translation of Rudy's skype conversation is? In the upcoming appeals, they talk about Rudy's skype conversation and how he knew which window was supposedly broken even though that information had not been released to the press. According to the Prosecutin Rudy was gone during the staging so he couldn't have been there for the staged break in. Therefore he couldn't know which window was staged. Yet he claims that filomena's window was not broken when he left. If he wasn't there for the staging, and the window that was quoted in the media that was broken was meredith's. How did he know it was filomena's window that was broken. I'm kinda hoping someone knows where the complete skype conversation is so i can read it. Also what was Guede using skype on.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You also could try to figure out what it would really mean, in terms of strenght employed and odd movement, to try to produce a long cut using a small knife with an 8 cm blade entirely plunged into tissues. I don't believe this. Both mechanically and dynamically. And I see it even less consistent with the other wounds, and even less consistent with further elements like the physical analysis of the larger wound.

All elements mentioned in the previous posts should be considered altogether as in a picture.
The shallow depth of the other wounds, the inconsistency of defensive theories, the print on the materass, the features of the larger wound, the oddity of the other neck wounds, the lack of defensive wounds on the victim's hands, the blows on two different sides of the neck (an assaulter would have to change hand?), with the vost violent blow being on the left side (is the attacker left handed? how was he holding the weapon?).

He was holding the knife in his right hand in such a way that if he held it out at arms length with the blade pointing down, the cutting edge would be facing him.

He grabbed her from behind and threw her to the floor. He inflicted two puncture wounds, one on the right side of her neck and one under her chin. He also inflicted a large slashing wound, pulling up and from left to right. After the struggle was over, but she was still gasping for breath, he rolled her onto her back. At that point, her bra was pushed up above her breasts. He then moved her to the place where her body was found.

That is the narrative told by her physical injuries and by the bloodstain evidence on the floor and on the doors of her wardrobe. It was the ideal environment for bloodstain analysis because the attack took place in a corner with three target surfaces at right angles.

 

[Fine]

No Pronoun Here

Kevin_Lowe,

In case you are still wondering about the proper translation of Raffaele's I pricked Merdith comment, in his Prison Diary, I found an ancient reference to Raffaele's "explanation" of Meredith's DNA on his kitchen knife. Apparently, in December of 2007 ---within six weeks of his son's arrest--- Doctor Sollecito himself was telling the media the same story, with no element of ambiguity as to just who got pricked...........

_________________________________________________
English Translation: It seemed so strange a thing else, the interview with Sky, Sollecito's father even swore that he knew for certain that that knife was used for a dinner and that his son had cooked that Meredith was cut, when spoke on the left looked like a liar, everyone has a smattering of these things may know that when a person remembers something tells it to say that looking to the left is lying.

Original Italian text:
Mi è sembrato tanto strana anche un altra cosa, l'intervista a SKY di Sollecito padre che addirittura giurava, che sapeva per certo, che quel coltello era stato usato per una cena e che il figlio aveva cucinato ,che Meredith si era tagliata, quando parlava guardava a sinistra come un bugiardo, chiunque ha un infarinatura di queste cose può sapere che quando una persona che ricorda una cosa la racconta guardando a sinistra vuol dire che stà mentendo.
________________________________________

This had been posted by Dexter, on December 18, 2007, at time 20:42, at website delitti imperfetti As you can see, Dexter didn't believe Dr. Sollecito, who appeared sinister to Dexter, so to speak.

///

 

[Mary_H]

Kevin_Lowe,

In case you are still wondering about the proper translation of Raffaele's I pricked Merdith comment, in his Prison Diary, I found an ancient reference to Raffaele's "explanation" of Meredith's DNA on his kitchen knife. Apparently, in December of 2007 ---within six weeks of his son's arrest--- Doctor Sollecito himself was telling the media the same story, with no element of ambiguity as to just who got pricked...........

_________________________________________________
English Translation: It seemed so strange a thing else, the interview with Sky, Sollecito's father even swore that he knew for certain that that knife was used for a dinner and that his son had cooked that Meredith was cut, when spoke on the left looked like a liar, everyone has a smattering of these things may know that when a person remembers something tells it to say that looking to the left is lying.

Original Italian text:
Mi è sembrato tanto strana anche un altra cosa, l'intervista a SKY di Sollecito padre che addirittura giurava, che sapeva per certo, che quel coltello era stato usato per una cena e che il figlio aveva cucinato ,che Meredith si era tagliata, quando parlava guardava a sinistra come un bugiardo, chiunque ha un infarinatura di queste cose può sapere che quando una persona che ricorda una cosa la racconta guardando a sinistra vuol dire che stà mentendo.
________________________________________

This had been posted by Dexter, on December 18, 2007, at time 20:42, at website delitti imperfetti As you can see, Dexter didn't believe Dr. Sollecito, who appeared sinister to Dexter, so to speak.

///

Thank you, Fine; this does settle the question of whether Raffaele was talking about Meredith or Amanda. As we saw from Raffaele's diary, his lawyer Tiziano did suggest to him on November 16th that Amanda might have taken the knife to her cottage, and Raffaele surmised he might have cooked with it there, in Meredith's presence.

Whether Raffaele's father was lying about it is another issue. He seems to have been quoting Raffaele. Raffaele made the statement on November 18th and Dr. Sollecito apparently was interviewed before December 18th (according to the timing of Dexter's post).

If that is an accurate translation and "looking to the left" is not an idiom, I hope they're not serious about it being a sign of lying.

 

[Machiavelli]

Or, he might have initially been in front of her, and then moved behind her. Or he might have temporarily taken the knife from her throat in order to cut the bra strap, and then held the knife with his left hand when he replaced it at her throat (or vice versa). Perhaps Guede needed his dominant hand to carry out the assault, and so held the knife in his left. Guede's 'clue' that the attacker was left-handed is quite possibly an indication that he - or the person who made the wounds - was holding it in their left hand. Perhaps this might even be one reason why some of the wounds were made, if the attacker was right-handed but holding the knife clumsily in his left. There are a lot of possibilities which would explain it.

All possibilities required to explain these injuries are not "normal". They are not less unlikely or odd than to assume the use of two knifes. The two knifes scenario would even be normal if the attackers are two as you seem to consider.
Those wounds are a very unusual picture, disomogeneous on many levels. It is absolutley not normal to assume an assaulter would switch the weapon from a hand to another during the attack. This maneuver alone would require to disengage both hands, something inconsistent with the autopsy showing no defensive disengagement of the victim. And there is no reason to give the weapon to the non dominant hand in order to strike the strongest blow.
The change in the side of the neck is not normal neither. We think that something should have changed in the position of the victim or the attacker.
Moreover, in my opinion the left blow was given with an orientation of the blade only consistent with the possibility of a frontal attack or anyway the use of a right hand.
In the end, the left and the right wound appear to me utterly inconsistent with each other, in dynamic, aim and position.
And the smaller left wound even shows even a different blade thickness.

The picture drawn by the wounds alone is inhomogeneous and peculiar.
But this finding is not an element in isolation in the case.