Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

While forcibly restraining the victim and using at least 2 different knives?

You're doing the same diversion as Lion King who inferred that each of about 5 points he/she was making necessitated multiple attackers. I stated that the suggestion that multiple bruises and cuts is not indicative of multiple attackers, which was suggested by Lion King. He/she responded with the same lame diversionary kind of question you have. If you'll read back, I told lion king that even assuming that "multiple knives" suggested multiple attackers, his other pieces of evidence did not indicate that in any way.

Do you believe multiple bruises and cuts demand a second perp? Please tell this to Marcia Clarke. She may have failed to convict OJ, but at least now she knows there were multiple killers. She can try to convict the other one now.

 

[snook1]

I don't think they have attacked the forensic and police work nearly enough. They may not be able to because of possible slander charges, local custom and because it is a small city where they all know and work together. The defense is certainly aware of all these problems. I wish the jury would be made aware of it.

That's exactly what I was afraid of.

 

[s_pepys]

There is no indication that more than one knife was used. This idea was invented by pro-guilt believers in order to accommodate the fact that the "double-DNA knife" doesn't match the evidence at the scene.

but even leaving this aside, there is evidence of multiple attackers. is there not?

 

[Matthew Best]

but even leaving this aside, there is evidence of multiple attackers. is there not?

I think the phrase is "evidence consistent with" multiple attackers. The fact that it is also consistent with a single attacker was glossed over.

 

[s_pepys]

You're doing the same diversion as Lion King who inferred that each of about 5 points he/she was making necessitated multiple attackers. I stated that the suggestion that multiple bruises and cuts is not indicative of multiple attackers, which was suggested by Lion King. He/she responded with the same lame diversionary kind of question you have. If you'll read back, I told lion king that even assuming that "multiple knives" suggested multiple attackers, his other pieces of evidence did not indicate that in any way.

Do you believe multiple bruises and cuts demand a second perp? Please tell this to Marcia Clarke. She may have failed to convict OJ, but at least now she knows there were multiple killers. She can try to convict the other one now.

hb

as i said before. it is dishonest and far to simplistic to state that multiple wounds could say anything about that. It is the proximity of the various injuries that are consistent with multiple attackers not the amount and no-one is suggesting otherwise are they?

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

I think the phrase is "evidence consistent with" multiple attackers. The fact that it is also consistent with a single attacker was glossed over.

NO!

they are not consistent with a single assailant. thats the whole point. The bruises indicate restraint by multiple attackers. not because of the frequency but because of the positioning. come on now!

lxxx

 

[snook1]

NO!

they are not consistent with a single assailant. thats the whole point. The bruises indicate restraint by multiple attackers. not because of the frequency but because of the positioning. come on now!

lxxx

Wasn't it established that there is no definite conclusion whether one or more attackers killed Meredith?

 

[Matthew Best]

NO!

they are not consistent with a single assailant. thats the whole point. The bruises indicate restraint by multiple attackers. not because of the frequency but because of the positioning. come on now!

You seem pretty certain. Where does this certainty come from, I wonder?

 

[s_pepys]

Wasn't it established that there is no definite conclusion if one or more attackers killed Meredith?

by whom? posters here or the court?

lxxx

 

[el buscador]

NO!

they are not consistent with a single assailant. thats the whole point. The bruises indicate restraint by multiple attackers. not because of the frequency but because of the positioning. come on now!

lxxx

Have you read forensic engineer Ron Hendry's reconstruction of this very point, located here.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry100.html

I have yet to see any detailed analogy such as this from any of the guilter experts. And that includes the prosecution.

 

[s_pepys]

You seem pretty certain. Where does this certainty come from, I wonder?

not sure what you mean. the bruising is either consistent with restraint from more than one person or not? In my work I often have to perform control and restraint with dangerous individuals. the bruising that sometimes occurs is very distinctive and recognisable. I would assume that this is the same principle when checking the various injuries on the victim to determine where and how she was held.

as far as trying to paint me as a "guilter" with your sarcasm. dont bother. Unlike you, i am not 100% certain about anything to do with this case apart from posters like you have made your minds up and will attack anyone who puts forward a reasoning for any uneducated assumptions made about one aspect or another.

you keep your beliefs, i want to discuss the evidence.

lxxx

 

[HumanityBlues]

hb

as i said before. it is dishonest and far to simplistic to state that multiple wounds could say anything about that. It is the proximity of the various injuries that are consistent with multiple attackers not the amount and no-one is suggesting otherwise are they?

lxxx

I understand what you are saying, but that is not how it was being put forth by others.

 

[snook1]

by whom? posters here or the court?

lxxx

Maybe this will help:

Lalli initially told the court he also believed Kercher had been assaulted by more than one person, but under cross-examination, he said he could not rule out a single attacker, Maresca said.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expert:+More+than+one+attacker+in+Briton's+slaying-a01611836187

 

[LondonJohn]

but even leaving this aside, there is evidence of multiple attackers. is there not?

No, there isn't.

Regarding the "multiple knives" issue: it's been pointed out very many times that all the knife woulds could have been caused by a single medium-sized, narrow-bladed, non-serrated knife. The ONLY reason why the prosecution and the court came to the "two or more knives" conclusion was that they were convinced that Sollecito's kitchen knife was one of the murder weapons, and THIS knife is incompatible with two of the knife wounds.

If Sollecito's kitchen knife gets discredited in the appeal, then there's no reason whatsoever to believe that more than one knife was involved. And what's more, it's utterly illogical to even suppose that more than one knife was involved. After all, if this had been a three-way group attack, with each of the assailants carrying knives, it would make absolutely no sense for two (or all three) of the assailants to place his/her knife at Meredith's throat. This would mean that their knives would have been moving in close proximity to each other, thereby greatly increasing the chances of one being injured by the other's knife. I'd suggest that if each assailant were carrying a knife, then each would have placed the knife to a different part of Meredith's body - perhaps neck, chest and back. In this way, not only would they minimise the chances of injuring each other, but it would also be a far more effective way to control Meredith. Of course, all this is moot, because just one person - handling just one knife - was responsible for this murder.

On this issue of "multiple bruises", I've already pointed out that this is a misleading (and willful) attempt to suggest that Meredith was involved in a protracted violent struggle. This is not true. The autopsy report is explicit in its description of the surface marks and bruises on Meredith's body. In most cases (outside of the choke hold on the neck), it describes them as "barely noticeable", "small" or "slight", and it also points out that there were no visible injuries to her chest, abdomen or lower limbs. See the Massei Report, English translation, pp110-112 for details.

 

[LondonJohn]

NO!

they are not consistent with a single assailant. thats the whole point. The bruises indicate restraint by multiple attackers. not because of the frequency but because of the positioning. come on now!

lxxx

Can you perhaps direct us towards the evidence regarding the positioning of the restraint bruises which indicates multiple attackers?

 

[s_pepys]

No, there isn't.

Regarding the "multiple knives" issue: it's been pointed out very many times that all the knife woulds could have been caused by a single medium-sized, narrow-bladed, non-serrated knife. The ONLY reason why the prosecution and the court came to the "two or more knives" conclusion was that they were convinced that Sollecito's kitchen knife was one of the murder weapons, and THIS knife is incompatible with two of the knife wounds.

If Sollecito's kitchen knife gets discredited in the appeal, then there's no reason whatsoever to believe that more than one knife was involved. And what's more, it's utterly illogical to even suppose that more than one knife was involved. After all, if this had been a three-way group attack, with each of the assailants carrying knives, it would make absolutely no sense for two (or all three) of the assailants to place his/her knife at Meredith's throat. This would mean that their knives would have been moving in close proximity to each other, thereby greatly increasing the chances of one being injured by the other's knife. I'd suggest that if each assailant were carrying a knife, then each would have placed the knife to a different part of Meredith's body - perhaps neck, chest and back. In this way, not only would they minimise the chances of injuring each other, but it would also be a far more effective way to control Meredith. Of course, all this is moot, because just one person - handling just one knife - was responsible for this murder.

On this issue of "multiple bruises", I've already pointed out that this is a misleading (and willful) attempt to suggest that Meredith was involved in a protracted violent struggle. This is not true. The autopsy report is explicit in its description of the surface marks and bruises on Meredith's body. In most cases (outside of the choke hold on the neck), it describes them as "barely noticeable", "small" or "slight", and it also points out that there were no visible injuries to her chest, abdomen or lower limbs. See the Massei Report, English translation, pp110-112 for details.

thanks lj. will have a read of that again. I agree the knife issues have always been spurious which i feel is unfortunate for prosecution and defence. are you aware thatThe bruising can be light but still consistent with a grip from restraint and that spotted correctly can even be used to show details about the restraint and/or restrainer. as far as injuries to the chest and abdomen, there is no particular reason why there should be any that i can think of.

lxxx

 

[komponisto]

but even leaving this aside, there is evidence of multiple attackers. is there not?

No. Carlo Torre, a renowned forensic scientist who testified as an expert witness for AK's defense, was very clear about this. We could go into the details if necessary, but if there really were such evidence, he would have noticed.

 

[lionking]

No. Carlo Torre, a renowned forensic scientist who testified as an expert witness for AK's defense, was very clear about this. We could go into the details if necessary, but if there really was such evidence, he would have noticed.

An expert witness for the defense? That's supposed to settle things?

 

[snook1]

An expert witness for the defense? That's supposed to settle things?

Dr Lalli also couldn't rule out that one person attacked and killed poor Meredith.

 

[s_pepys]

No. Carlo Torre, a renowned forensic scientist who testified as an expert witness for AK's defense, was very clear about this. We could go into the details if necessary, but if there really were such evidence, he would have noticed.

yes i would very much like to hear the details please. thanks.

lxxx