Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

All possibilities required to explain these injuries are not "normal". They are not more unlikely or more od than 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 nek 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.

But do you think it's "normal" for two assailants to each be holding a knife to the throat of the victim? That's the alternative, after all.

To me, it's far more likely that one person was holding one knife to the victim's throat, and causing the not-inhomogeneous wounds....

 

[Chris C]

C'mon Rose, this mole has been whacked a gazillion times. Amanda possessed a very large bag, and for what other reason could she have possessed such a large bag if not for the purposes of carrying a very large knife therein? I know I always steer clear of women carrying very large bags for just that reason.

Your wrong, Amanda carried the large knife in the dark car that was parked in the drive way.

 

[LondonJohn]

And which hand is he using to grab her arms and to cover her mouth?

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that Meredith would have struggled from the very beginning of the assault. However, when confronted with a violent, strong man wielding a sharp knife, most people (male or female) would tend to acquiesce, unless they were already certain that the assailant intended to seriously injure or kill them.

In many violent rapes of women by men, for example, the women become passive through a combination of blind fear and the fear of implied further violence if they resist. In a lesser of two evils, the women choose to stop resisting and submit to a horrible sexual assault, in preference to fighting back and risking being seriously injured or killed.

So I believe that Meredith is most likely to have complied with Guede's demands, once she saw that he had a serious knife and did not seem unprepared to use it. I believe that he may have begun a sexual assault, at which point she started verbally resisting. That's when he may have paused the assault and placed his hand over her mouth to prevent her from making further noises. An element of strangulation may have occurred at this point too. I think that when Guede resumed the sexual assault, Meredith may have shouted out again, precipitating the fatal stab/slash woulds to her neck. I think that Guede was so aroused by this point that he finished the sexual assault. I think he may have turned Meredith over onto her back as she lay dying, lifted her bra, and actually had intercourse with her. I think he may have ejaculated onto the pillow which he'd placed under her hips - we will see if the substance on the pillowcase gets tested as part of the appeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's been asked how the experts and majority that believe that the evidence against Amanda is correct, can be proved wrong.

1.) Every watch the pictures of African zebra, water buffalo and gazelle when attacked by predators? They stick together. Man is also a herd animal.

2.) Almost all man and his experts used to believe the world was flat. They were proved wrong by sailors that circumnavigated the globe.

3.) Romans used to cheer to see people and animals die in the Roman forum. People that did not cheer could be thrown in to the arena. Was the majority right or wrong?

How does the scientific method prove something right when the majority does not understand? Basically step by agreed upon step. Assembling a string of small steps together that everybody can agree is true yields the proof.

There are several ways to prove the pathagoreum theorum (c^2=b^2+a^2) is correct. A few simple math steps that everybody knows is true are put together to proves equation. Yet the majority does not know how to do this. I think I've forgotten myself.

QED: The experts and majority can be proved wrong.

The easiest way for me is with a ruler ⊿

Sometimes the debate on some of these issues gets very technical and I think people naturally tend to believe the prosecution's experts over those on the defense team. They seem to think there is less bias on the part of the prosecution experts. Unfortunately, that may not always be the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

But do you think it's "normal" for two assailants to each be holding a knife to the throat of the victim? That's the alternative, after all.

Maybe this is *your* alternative.

Read a bit of the rest.

 

[Chris C]

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.

Of course it would also seem odd to have 2 assaulters attacking someone in a small room with one person holding a knife in the left hand and the other person holding it in the right hand. Then have both fighting for position to stab the girl once. Think about it. If they both had a knife they would both stab the same side if they both hold it in their right hands. So basicly one would have to be left handed to use that scenario. Guess that rules out either Knox or Sollecito as one of the assaulters.

Of course if there was 3 people they would be able to subdue Meredith quickly without having to inflict 40+ bruises. So a more likely scenario is Meredith was stabbed once while facing the assaulter and once more when she tried to escape by turning her back in a struggle that causes all those bruises and marks on her body.

 

[LondonJohn]

No.
She was not stabbed while on the floor, she was standing or kneeling. The pattern of blood stains show she was standing or kneeling also when she received the second blow. Blood droplets from her lungs are at almost 1 meter of height on the closet.
Rudy or others didn’t proceed to do other things right away after the stabbing, because Nara Capezzali (who is credible, contrarily from what people claim) heard a person running out immediately after the scream.
Rudy didn’t remove her trousers after the assault, because her trousers were clean and had no significant blood stains.
He did not push up her bra because the bra has no stains from finger, and he did not manipulate her sexually because her breast is clean and his right hand was bloody.
Rudy didn’t touch any part of her body nor her cloths after the killing, because he had an injured hand and he left no blood droplets, and he had one hand dirty with her blood too.
He did not move her right after the stabbing, because the body remained near the closet for some time and was moved only after at least 10-15 minutes as the coddling of the blood stains shows.
Blood stains show the attack did not take place in one corner, but in various places in the room beginning from the entrance door.
Moreover, the perversion of sexual attraction for dying or dead people is very rare, and not likely at all (while Rudy’s psychological profile instead was quite transparent to his friend and previous girlfriends, and no clue of such fantasies is available), and not needed.
She was not punctured under her chin, she was punctured on the right side and then hit on the left side after just a first touch, as on the left side the minor wound is only millimetres from the main wound.
Moreover, Meredith had a hand grabbing her mouth for long minutes before she was stabbed, which suggests a sexual violence was carried out during this time, not after.
Moreover, she had a number of bruises (including hold bruises on her hip) suggestive of an active sexual violence, on a living and fighting person. Moreover, the bra fastener was cut with a clean knife.

Your reconstruction conflicts with an impressive array of findings.

By the way, how could Nera Capezzali have heard a "blood-curdling" scream - which must have originated in Meredith's room which had a closed window facing directly away from the road and Nera's apartment - yet none of the other residents in the entire neighbourhood heard this scream, which apparently happened at around 11.30pm on the evening of a public holiday?

Please explain how the noise of the scream transmitted itself out of Meredith's room, along the corridor, through either the road-facing exterior wall of the girls' house or the closed heavy front door, across the street, up three stories, and through a double-glazed window, without ANYONE else in the vicinity hearing it. I feel pretty confident that any of the dozens of residents within 100m of the house who must have been awake at that time of the evening would have been happy to come forward to report hearing such a scream if they had in fact heard it. Yet none did. Curious.

 

[Machiavelli]

In many violent rapes of women by men, for example, the women become passive through a combination of blind fear and the fear of implied further violence if they resist.

I am not going to respond to your ideas.

A woman facing an intruder in her house, or a person attempting a sexual assault or a person armed with a knife, whould scream up the hell so loud to break all the windows in the neighborhod.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe this is *your* alternative.

Read a bit of the rest.

That's very cryptic. What do you mean? Are you suggesting a different scenario than two or more assailants each holding their own knife to Meredith's throat simultaneously?

 

[Machiavelli]

By the way, how could Nera Capezzali have heard a "blood-curdling" scream - which must have originated in Meredith's room which had a closed window facing directly away from the road and Nera's apartment

LondonJohn I will not explain you anything, find your explanation yourself.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that Meredith would have struggled from the very beginning of the assault. However, when confronted with a violent, strong man wielding a sharp knife, most people (male or female) would tend to acquiesce, unless they were already certain that the assailant intended to seriously injure or kill them.

In many violent rapes of women by men, for example, the women become passive through a combination of blind fear and the fear of implied further violence if they resist. In a lesser of two evils, the women choose to stop resisting and submit to a horrible sexual assault, in preference to fighting back and risking being seriously injured or killed.

So I believe that Meredith is most likely to have complied with Guede's demands, once she saw that he had a serious knife and did not seem unprepared to use it. I believe that he may have begun a sexual assault, at which point she started verbally resisting. That's when he may have paused the assault and placed his hand over her mouth to prevent her from making further noises. An element of strangulation may have occurred at this point too. I think that when Guede resumed the sexual assault, Meredith may have shouted out again, precipitating the fatal stab/slash woulds to her neck. I think that Guede was so aroused by this point that he finished the sexual assault. I think he may have turned Meredith over onto her back as she lay dying, lifted her bra, and actually had intercourse with her. I think he may have ejaculated onto the pillow which he'd placed under her hips - we will see if the substance on the pillowcase gets tested as part of the appeal.

And you seem to be making the mistake of missing the evidence. The multiple injuries Meredith received in the form of restraint marks show she was anything but passive. Passive people don't need restraining.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not going to respond to your ideas.

A woman facing an intruder in her house, or a person attempting a sexual assault or a person armed with a knife, whould scream up the hell so loud to break all the windows in the neighborhod.

Are you sure about that? Why do so many women who are raped at knifepoint in urban environments fail to "scream up the hell so loud"? Could it be because their attacker says that he will kill them if they make any noise or resist?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The easiest way for me is with a ruler ⊿

Sometimes the debate on some of these issues gets very technical and I think people naturally tend to believe the prosecution's experts over those on the defense team. They seem to think there is less bias on the part of the prosecution experts. Unfortunately, that may not always be the case.

Fortunately, the technical stuff and bias was tested in a court of law.

 

[LondonJohn]

And you seem to be making the mistake of missing the evidence. The multiple injuries Meredith received in the form of restraint marks show she was anything but passive. Passive people don't need restraining.

They do during the initial confrontation and struggle. But once the assailant has a knife held at their throat and threatens to slit their throat if they resist further, then quite often the resistance stops at that point......

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn I will not explain you anything, find your explanation yourself.

My explanation is that Nara was mistaken, most likely honestly mistaken. And feel free to ignore anything I say if it suits you to do so.

 

[Justinian2]

The easiest way for me is with a ruler ⊿

Sometimes the debate on some of these issues gets very technical and I think people naturally tend to believe the prosecution's experts over those on the defense team. They seem to think there is less bias on the part of the prosecution experts. Unfortunately, that may not always be the case.

The easiest way to "prove" the Pythagorean theorem is with a ruler! That's a good analogy!

The real proof is with simple math. However, those not inclined can use a ruler and a few examples.

Same with the case reqarding AK and RS. We don't have to know all pathology, just a few tools by which we can prove the truth to ourselves.

That is why, from the limitations of the data in the Massei report, I am 100% certain that AK and RS are innocent.

Even the "experts" need to prove the case; expert opinion is not enough. Furthermore, when we read into the testimony of the experts, we realize that what Massei said they were saying isn't what they were saying. The opinion of Massei isn't the combined opinions of the experts, only Massei's pseudo expert opinion. Massei isn't a majority.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But do you think it's "normal" for two assailants to each be holding a knife to the throat of the victim? That's the alternative, after all.

Do you think a girl being murdered in her own home is 'normal'? We are no longer in the world of 'normal'. One can't be discarding scenarios that fits the fact and evidence on the basis that they don't meet one's arbitrary concept of 'normal'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They do during the initial confrontation and struggle. But once the assailant has a knife held at their throat and threatens to slit their throat if they resist further, then quite often the resistance stops at that point......

The magic knife just suddenly materialised?

 

[Fulcanelli]

My explanation is that Nara was mistaken, most likely honestly mistaken. And feel free to ignore anything I say if it suits you to do so.

I see, both she and the other witness were mistaken...at the same time.


I'm not sure how one gets to be mistaken about hearing a scream. One hears it or they don't.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you sure about that? Why do so many women who are raped at knifepoint in urban environments fail to "scream up the hell so loud"? Could it be because their attacker says that he will kill them if they make any noise or resist?

And your evidence for that assertion made as fact is...where?