Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Of course doesn't the prosecution claim that the piece of glass is what caused the defensive cuts on Meredith's hands.
No, that was Raffaele's expert, Dr. Introna. Massei rejected his analysis, and made sense in doing so. I never did understand the strategy of having separate forensic experts for Raffaele and Amanda, and I wonder what the rationale here was for trying to say the cuts on the hands came from glass as opposed to the knife. Is there something obvious that's not occurring to me?
Massei Page 160 said:Dissimilar interpretations have also been advanced with regard to signs found on the iliac spines, the upper limbs (signs of falling or gripping), and to certain small wounds found on Meredith’s hands, which Professor Introna attributed – although in purely hypothetical terms – to a fall of the girl who, by placing or, in any case, by bringing her hands to the floor, would have suffered a few small wounds on them due to a piece of glass present on the floor of the room.
This piece of glass (which in the film of the November 2, 2007 inspection, as indicated by Professor Introna, appears at 19:26 and 42 seconds) is noticeable as being quite close to a print left by a bloodied shoe and deprived of any stain which would have led to a discovery of whether the origin of the small cuts on the hands was really this piece of glass. Above all, the reason given to explain the wounds on the hands as coming from the harmful action of this piece of glass appears unlikely, both in itself (as it is quite difficult to imagine that one would fall precisely onto that little piece of glass, injuring oneself again) and also considering that there were multiple wounds to the hands and only one little piece of glass in the room.
