Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Why do you assume these things were all done at the same time? I would guess he grabbed her mouth when she tried to shout or scream, while holding the knife to her throat (I see no evidence that it was 'for long minutes', either, merely that it was hard enough to leave the bruises).

You don't see evidence because you're not a pathologist. She suffered a prolonged state of semi-asphyxia, albeit probably not deadly per se, which must have occurred before the severing of the trachea.
So you think she was not screming while somebody begun to stab her? Or she did not scream after somebody tried to suffocate her? Or she didn't use her hands to defend herself after the attacker left them to cover her mouth?
Three or more action must have occurred simultaneously at some point.
Why aren't you able to admit that this focus on the dynamic brings a further piece of circumstantial evidence that the assailants were more than one person?

 

[Machiavelli]

You are assuming both the knife print and the wound can be measured very accurately and to the millimetre

2 cm is not a millimetre

 

[katy_did]

2 cm is not a millimetre

Where are your figures from? Can you quote that part of the report? (re: the knife print)

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why do you assume these things were all done at the same time? I would guess he grabbed her mouth when she tried to shout or scream, while holding the knife to her throat (I see no evidence that it was 'for long minutes', either, merely that it was hard enough to leave the bruises). At another point during the assault, he grabbed hold of her arm with one hand and held the knife to her throat with the other. We're talking a sequence of actions, a progressive assault; not a manic attack in which everything had to happen simultaneously.

Which also had time restraints, as shown by the evidence (that offered by both defence and prosecution). Therefore, a long drawn out progressive attack doesn't fit. It wasn't a short frantic attack either...it was in between the two.

 

[Machiavelli]

If it didn't form part of Massei's reconstruction of the facts, on what basis are you presuming it happened?

katy do you consider yourself a neutral thinker?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Can you elaborate?



Yes, you just assumed it. It removed the question for you. Now you need to assume a time at which she heard it. Then the only question left will be the miraculous stomach contents.

Machiavelli has already done that. As he has shown, Meredith was held in multiple places at the same time. A lone attacker with a knife couldn't have done all this with one hand. Hence octopus...or in reality, multiple people.

 

[katy_did]

You don't see evidence because you're not a pathologist. She suffered a prolonged state of semi-asphyxia, albeit probably not deadly per se, which must have occurred before the severing of the trachea.
So you think she was not screming while somebody begun to stab her? Or she did not scream after somebody tried to suffocate her? Or she didn't use her hands to defend herself after the attacker left them to cover her mouth?
Three or more action must have occurred simultaneously at some point.
Why aren't you able to admit that this focus on the dynamic brings a further piece of circumstantial evidence that the assailants were more than one person?

I'm going to have to re-read this particular section of the Massei report before answering you fully, but I just had a quick browse through the part on Dr. Lalli's testimony:

The cause of death was attributed to acute cardio-respiratory failure caused by the combined mechanism of haemorrhaging of the vascular lesion in the neck and asphyxial mechanism. This latter could have been caused by the aspiration of blood or by a further action of strangulation or suffocation. Such asphyxia mechanism was confirmed by the presence of subconjunctival petechiae and the presence of intra-alveolar pools of blood.

Where does your information about a "prolonged state of semi-asphyxia...which must have occurred before the severing of the trachea" come from? From what Lalli said, it appears the asphyxiation could have occurred to the inhaling of blood after the wounds were made.

As to your other points, you're again assuming people automatically fight back when someone holds a knife to their throat. They often don't, for reasons of self-preservation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Where are your figures from? Can you quote that part of the report?

Let's put in clear that I write here only to show how my ideas are built and grounded, and if it's the case to provide information. I'm not going to demonstrate facts, especially not facts which any neutral observer can verify. I provided measurements I took from pictures, I think any reader who wants to accept them doesn't need anything more. If you prefer your speculations it's not my buisness. I told you the reason why I come to some conclusions, and that is enough.

 

[katy_did]

Which also had time restraints, as shown by the evidence (that offered by both defence and prosecution). Therefore, a long drawn out progressive attack doesn't fit. It wasn't a short frantic attack either...it was in between the two.

Possibly so. However, in so far as we can tell how long the attack took, I would guess it's based predominantly on the wounds, the blood pattern and so on. The assault could have continued for some time prior to that point, but with no obvious indications of it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If it didn't form part of Massei's reconstruction of the facts, on what basis are you presuming it happened? (particularly given it would have been discussed during the closed court sessions).

So, if Massei didn't document that you peed yesterday you didn't pee?

The evidence is in the case file. Massei was convinced...he used that evidence from the case file and the testimony that convinced him. The same for Micheli. That's how it works.

This is where Edda Mellas fell down. She complained that the report contained elements that weren't heard in court. That isn't required, they just need to be in the case file (which the defence also have a copy of). In turn the prosecution choose what they they want to raise from that file in court. The defence, likewise, choose what they wish to raise in the court to contest. However, since the judges are equally dynamic they can choose to use elements only one other party or even none, have opted to raise in court.

It's a hard concept to explain just how dynamic judges are in the Italian system. They literally are an extra party in addition to that of the prosecution, that of the defence and that of the victim...they are 'investigative'. Are you starting to catch on?

 

[Machiavelli]

Where does your information about a "prolonged state of semi-asphyxia...which must have occurred before the severing of the trachea" come from? From what Lalli said, it appears the asphyxiation could have occurred to the inhaling of blood after the wounds were made.

This comes from the further conclusion of other patologists who believed the dominant factor of death was the emhorragic shock, not the inhalation of blood.
In a large vessel there isn't enough blood to flood the lungs. Lungs can contain several litres. And if you loose litres of blood, you die of hemorragic shock before asphyxia.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I reckon Nara heard that injured cat. They make blood-curdling screeches even when they're not injured.

Nara undoubtedly got this from the press images.

Incidentally, I believe the only time Nara claimed to have seen Knox and Sollecito after the murder is when she said she saw them in the car park looking over at the house on the day the murder was discovered. Except they were never in the car park then, but always in the yard outside the house with the others.

That's not what the court judged...after due process and cross examination by all parties. When was it you got to cross examine Nara?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Machiavelli has already done that. As he has shown, Meredith was held in multiple places at the same time. A lone attacker with a knife couldn't have done all this with one hand. Hence octopus...or in reality, multiple people.

Excuse me, but Machiavelli hasn't shown anything about Meredith being held in multiple places at the same time.
A lone attacker very well could bruise her in multiple places.

What about the stomach contents then?

 

[katy_did]

Let's put in clear that I write here only to show how my ideas are built and grounded, and if it's the case to provide information. I'm not going to demonstrate facts, especially not facts which any neutral observer can verify. I provided measurements I took from pictures, I think any reader who wants to accept them doesn't need anything more. If you prefer your speculations it's not my buisness. I told you the reason why I come to some conclusions, and that is enough.

If you're working only from pictures, and not from verified facts from those who were able to examine the actual evidence, how can you be so sure your measurements are accurate? We've already seen ample evidence of how difficult it is to obtain accurate measurements based on photographs, in relation to the footprints for example. I think that saying there is "no doubt" that the knife which made the print could not have been used to its full extent in the wound is pushing the evidence you have right to its limits.

Which is not to say you are necessarily wrong, but I believe that stating it as an unarguable fact is something for which you don't really have enough basis.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Possibly so. However, in so far as we can tell how long the attack took, I would guess it's based predominantly on the wounds, the blood pattern and so on. The assault could have continued for some time prior to that point, but with no obvious indications of it.

Blood pattern doesn't tell you how long an attack took. People, potentially, continue bleeding long after they've been attacked. They may stumble or crawl about spreading blood. That's not a measure of the duration of the attack itself. It may indicate the number of stabs and the the direct effect those stabs made in terms of spatter, but they won't provide you with a clock of when they were made or how far apart in time from each other. This is what context is for.

 

[katy_did]

This comes from the further conclusion of other patologists who believed the dominant factor of death was the emhorragic shock, not the inhalation of blood.
In a large vessel there isn't enough blood to flood the lungs. Lungs can contain several litres. And if you loose litres of blood, you die of hemorragic shock before asphyxia.

But Lalli - who performed the autopsy - did not believe that, did he? He thought the asphyxia could have occurred afterwards. I recall testimony from at least one of the other experts who also said the bruises were probably from the attacker trying to silence the victim, not an attempt to suffocate her, so presumably they didn't believe that either. Whose testimony is it you're relying on? Quotes would help.

As I said, though, I will have a re-read of that section of the report; it's just that I don't recall the experts saying there was a prolonged asphyxia prior to the wounds being made. But I may have missed it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That's not what the court judged...after due process and cross examination by all parties. When was it you got to cross examine Nara?

Fulcanelli, you like to use the argument from authority. But you seem to forget that the court is the authority that is disputed is this thread. For me it looks like circular reasoning.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you're working only from pictures, and not from verified facts from those who were able to examine the actual evidence, how can you be so sure your measurements are accurate? We've already seen ample evidence of how difficult it is to obtain accurate measurements based on photographs, in relation to the footprints for example. I think that saying there is "no doubt" that the knife which made the print could not have been used to its full extent in the wound is pushing the evidence you have right to its limits.

Which is not to say you are necessarily wrong, but I believe that stating it as an unarguable fact is something for which you don't really have enough basis.

In football (soccer) that's what we call a back pass.

And really, that's never stopped you people has it? At best, you've had one or two pictures that 'may' relate to a specific fact. That's never prevented you from making assertions of certainty. Yet, then we have someone who disagrees with you and is doing the same, suddenly you're down on it? It's all good when it's all good...is that it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, you like to use the argument from authority. But you seem to forget that the court is the authority that is disputed is this thread. For me it looks like circular reasoning.

Well, when an authority makes a judgement that puts the ball back in your court. That's my experience of life anyway. Is it different for you?

 

[katy_did]

So, if Massei didn't document that you peed yesterday you didn't pee?

The evidence is in the case file. Massei was convinced...he used that evidence from the case file and the testimony that convinced him. The same for Micheli. That's how it works.

I ask again: if Massei said nothing about Meredith's body being moved 'quite some time' after the wounds were made, on what basis are you assuming this to be the case? Since he believes Rudy fled straight away, if there had been convincing evidence Meredith was moved some time later - even after her death - would he not have included that as significant evidence against Knox and Sollecito?

We don't know what was proven or disproven during the closed sessions, so the only basis I and presumably you have for evaluating the evidence that emerged from them is what Massei says. And on this particular issue, he says nothing. Why then do you assume he accepted it happened? And do you also accept everything else Matteini and Micheli said unless it's explicitly rejected by Massei?

This is where Edda Mellas fell down. She complained that the report contained elements that weren't heard in court. That isn't required, they just need to be in the case file (which the defence also have a copy of). In turn the prosecution choose what they they want to raise from that file in court. The defence, likewise, choose what they wish to raise in the court to contest. However, since the judges are equally dynamic they can choose to use elements only one other party or even none, have opted to raise in court.

It's a hard concept to explain just how dynamic judges are in the Italian system. They literally are an extra party in addition to that of the prosecution, that of the defence and that of the victim...they are 'investigative'. Are you starting to catch on?

From memory, Edda Mellas talked about the speculation in the report over one of the knives having been Sollecito's, stating that this was never brought up in Court. This is an issue raised in the appeals: they state that Sollecito had to defend himself during the trial against one charge, only for the Court to arbitrarily decide he was guilty of another. The defence argue there's a lack of correspondence between the charge he was tried for, and that for which he was convicted. So from the defence lawyers' perspective at least, Edda Mellas was right, and there's a section of the appeals dedicated to that particular issue.