• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way, aren't captains supposed to remain with their sinking ships - either until they are the last person to be rescued or they go down with their ship? Has nobody seen any films about the RMS Titanic?? Things have changed in the 21st century, obviously....... :p

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I would really like to know, since it doesnt fit in any way with what we are discussing.
 
A quick note on what the pathology experts in the first trial said about ToD as determined by the stomach/intestine contents at autopsy:

1) Dr Lalli (the autopsy pathologist) said pretty firmly that death occurred "no later than 2-3 hours after eating".

2) Prof Bacci (prosecution witness) said that the stomach/intestine contents indicated that death occurred "3-4 hours after eating".

3) Prof Norelli (Kercher civil witness) said (incredibly) that he couldn't estimate a ToD from stomach contents since he didn't know what Meredith ate nor when she ate it - both of which are fairly well established within certain ranges. He also noted a time of "2-4 hours" for the stomach to empty - which is not relevant when Meredith's stomach had not yet even begun to empty.

4) Prof Introna (Sollecito's witness) said that the stomach "under standard conditions" only BEGINS to empty between 3-4 hours after the meal.

Now, there are two important inferences (in my view) to be drawn from the above set of opinions. The first is that the expert witnesses flat contradict each other in their opinions. At least two (and probably at least three) out of Lalli, Norelli, Bacci and Introna are, by definition, wrong. They cannot conceivably all be correct. And I can almost hear some people saying - in response to this - something like: "Ah, well that just serves to show how imprecise the medical science is in this area". But that would be a facile and incorrect observation to make. If the medical science were indeed imprecise, then it's the duty of the expert witnesses to state exactly that - not to give time ranges which contradict each other. In addition, one of the "experts" - Norelli - erroneously homed in on a parameter (total stomach emptying time) which was entirely irrelevant to the case, and another of the "experts" - Introna - quoted a statistic which was ridiculously incorrect. So much for "expert testimony"......

The second inference to draw is that Sollecito's defence team picked a complete lemon in Prof Introna. He either hadn't done his homework or he was signally incompetent. After all, he made an assertion (that the stomach normally only STARTS to empty after around 3.5 hours) that is not only flat wrong, but is also a worse case that all the prosecution's expert witnesses! I can 100% guarantee that Introna was dreadfully wrong (and harmful to his client) to state this opinion in relation to stomach emptying times. And it's also a dreadful indictment of Sollecito's defence team that they didn't properly vet or prepare this witness in the first trial.

I believe that Lalli (who ironically was the police's forensic pathologist) is the one among the experts who was closest to being correct, when he stated that the stomach/intestine contents indicated that Meredith must have died within 2-3 hours of eating. I further believe that the defence will find it easy to find other internationally-respected forensic pathologists to support this opinion, and to refute any suggestion that Meredith died any longer than 3.5 hours after eating.
 
How long do you think that a 20 year old girl "should" keep a strict poker face after a murder?

After how long is it psychologically possible or acceptable in your view for a 20 year old girl to express joy without necessarily being guilty of that murder? What is your basis for this view?

You mean Twenty (20) year old adult WOMAN.

She was in 3rd year U.!

Old enough to marry, vote, contract, go to war, or run for office in her state legislature!

Rudy Guede is the SAME AGE as Amanda.

Yet you don't refer to him as if he were an "infant."

Is it male chauvinism or racism, Kevin?
 
Last edited:
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I would really like to know, since it doesnt fit in any way with what we are discussing.

I understood it to be a reference to Maresca walking out of the trial - obviously he was deserting the prosecution's sinking ship, even though he was one of the captains. That seemed pretty clear to me.

If you could try to stay on topic, Solange, I'm sure we would all greatly appreciate it, thanks.
 
Well, obviously the people calling for her to apologize do not believe it was coerced, and believe she is guilty. So although I know you don't agree, it fits with their opinion. And she did choose to apologize on her own, so I think she or her lawyers felt it was appropriate, and I agree, even if it were true that the police coerced her, it is just about showing empathy and caring for what others went through.

Exactly: calling for her to apologize presumes that she's guilty. On the other hand, if she's innocent, then it's the police who should apologize. If her guilt/innocence is still being determined, as it is, then there's a possibility someone who was coerced into a confession is being held accountable for that. As I said, that's something I think should be questioned.

So do you think that lawyers shouldn't tell their clients to wear suits to court, cut their hair, shave, say as little as possible, etc.? All trials are now x-factor, if that's what you believe.
Some more than others. But yes, there's certainly a 'reality TV' element to a lot of these very high-profile trials. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
 
I understood it to be a reference to Maresca walking out of the trial - obviously he was deserting the prosecution's sinking ship, even though he was one of the captains. That seemed pretty clear to me.

If you could try to stay on topic, Solange, I'm sure we would all greatly appreciate it, thanks.

I am perfectly on topic Withnail, I asked for clarification of a post he made here. And Maresca is not part of the prosecution, and he only walked out during Amanda's speech. Im sure you know that though, I don't know why you keep trying to upset me, do you not like my posts or participation?
 
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I would really like to know, since it doesnt fit in any way with what we are discussing.

Oh, it's obviously an oblique reference to the suggestion from some observers that Giulia Bongiorno might have been using her pregnancy as an excuse to remove herself from Sollecito's defence team, since (according to the same observers) she might believe Sollecito's case to be unwinnable.

Why, what did YOU think it was referring to.....? ;)
 
Oh, it's obviously an oblique reference to the suggestion from some observers that Giulia Bongiorno might have been using her pregnancy as an excuse to remove herself from Sollecito's defence team, since (according to the same observers) she might believe Sollecito's case to be unwinnable.

Why, what did YOU think it was referring to.....? ;)

I didn't know, but wow, I'm surprised you think Sollecito's defense is a sinking ship, it seems we are starting to see eye to eye.
 
Oh, it's much worse then that. The interrogation WAS stopped and she was made a formal suspect. They were done with her for the night. Not content with that she then insisted on being heard again, to make a voluntary statement. It was in that second statement she went into detail...describing how she had met Patrick at the basketball court, how they had gone to the cottage together because he 'wanted' Meredith and they wanted to have some fun, how he then went into Meredith's room while she stood in the kitchen covering her ears as he raped and murdered Meredith.

Are you talking about the 'confession' statements?
Where did you find info on this? I spent a great deal of time trying to find them only to get the impression from a couple different sources that they'd never been seen by anyone.
 
I didn't know, but wow, I'm surprised you think Sollecito's defense is a sinking ship, it seems we are starting to see eye to eye.

How have your powers of reasoning led you to believe that I think Sollecito's defence is a sinking ship?

PS Any suggestions on a Sunday evening movie for me to watch? :)
 
How have your powers of reasoning led you to believe that I think Sollecito's defence is a sinking ship?

PS Any suggestions on a Sunday evening movie for me to watch? :)


'Downfall' - The last days of Hitler in the Berlin Bunker. I hear that's a pretty good film.
 
<snip>

I think your second paragraph rather suggests that platonov may be wrong, and that the whole thing is a little bit X Factor (wear the right clothes, cry at the right time, smile when appropriate, get the public on-side, etc etc...).


No katy_did, you are confusing [or conflating ;) ]two ENTIRELY separate things.

platonovs point [ here ] about X factor refers to the content of this thread primarily.
Where much of the Foaker comment - 'Leave Amanda alone' - is focused on on press coverage [mostly non Italian] or incidental and irrelevant issues AS opposed to the actual evidence that convicted - & the ongoing confusion between (or conflation of) the two.

Obviously demeanor ( & dress etc ) in court plays a part in a jury's assessment of a defendant and their credibility - this is hardly new, it long predates the electronic media.
 
Last edited:
How have your powers of reasoning led you to believe that I think Sollecito's defence is a sinking ship?

Apparently my powers of reasoning aren't strong enough to deduce your often-coded language, forgive me for trying.

PS Any suggestions on a Sunday evening movie for me to watch? :)

Dumb and Dumber?

.............
 
But I thought the Massei report was carved in stone. That's what your colleague Pilot Padron keeps saying.

How would you know what Pilot says, I thought you had him on ignore, as you you oh so tactfully put in your sig?

He says it's unassailable because it was written by a highly respected 'jurist'.

I think what he means is that we should at least keep in mind the fact that he is an experienced judge who was actually there to hear the testimony and see the evidence, not necessarily that he is unassailable.
.....
 
The strangest thing is the police entering Sollecito's apartment on the 15th and noting the "strong smell of bleach" as something indicative of foul play. When one stops to consider that Sollecito and Knox had been in custody since the evening of the 5th - almost 10 days earlier - it doesn't take a genius to conclude that any "smell of bleach" that might have been present in the apartment on the 15th had nothing whatsoever to do with Sollecito or Knox.

In fact, isn't there some pretty strong evidence that this "strong smell of bleach" was instead from the disinfectant that Sollecito's cleaner had used to clean the floor? If the kitchen knife were still smelling strongly of bleach 10 days after Sollecito or Knox had access to it, then it must have essentially been doused in neat bleach 10 days (or more) previously. And that would have obliterated anything on the knife.

The obvious suggestion is that the knife wasn't actually cleaned with bleach. It was used and cleaned in the normal way - using washing-up disinfectant. Knox's DNA was on the handle because she was the last person to handle the knife - perhaps while putting it away in the drawer after it had been washed. And Meredith's miniscule amount o DNA on the blade was the result of contamination in the laboratory (or maybe something more sinister).

By the way, aren't captains supposed to remain with their sinking ships - either until they are the last person to be rescued or they go down with their ship? Has nobody seen any films about the RMS Titanic?? Things have changed in the 21st century, obviously....... :p

I think the November 15 reference to the knife is when it was tested or the results of testing for DNA. The knife was recovered from Sollecito's flat on November 6 according to the Massei Motivations.
 
.....How would you know what Pilot says, I thought you had him on ignore, as you you oh so tactfully put in your sig?

I do have him on ignore, but i see his posts when they are quoted in other peoples'.


I think what he means is that we should at least keep in mind the fact that he is an experienced judge who was actually there to hear the testimony and see the evidence, not necessarily that he is unassailable

After reading 20 pages of Massei I could tell the old buffer wasn't exactly a full shilling. I couldn't give a damn about his experience.
 
I think the November 15 reference to the knife is when it was tested or the results of testing for DNA. The knife was recovered from Sollecito's flat on November 6 according to the Massei Motivations.

I think you're right - my mistake. However, I think there's still a strong point to be made that it's highly unlikely that the knife would still smell strongly of bleach some 12-18 hours later - given that no bleach was actually found on the knife and no bleach solution was open in the apartment (e.g. in a bowl or in the sink). IIRC the smell can most likely be attributed to the disinfectant used by Sollecito's cleaner to clean the floor. I don't believe that the kitchen knife was ever bleached, or that it "stood out" as unusually clean. And the idea that a few of Meredith's skin cells got somehow "caught" in a scratch on the blade - and managed to cling in there despite the obvious fact that the knife would have had to at least have been washed clean with soap and plenty of water if it had been used in the murder, given the condition in which it was found - sounds unlikely in the extreme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom