Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Strozzi]

Mach just tweeted this from Crini:

Crini: no defence wounds, no fight bruises, nothing under nails, bruises indicate forced restraint of victim; how she was immobilized

I get so confused about this multiple attacker argument. Here Crini says fewer wounds means multiple attackers. I have also read the argument that OMG she had over 40 wounds. So many wounds means multiple attackers!

Can somebody help me to understand this better?

One needs to understand that the so-called wounds really consist if two different types of occurrences. There are knife wounds and bruise injuries. (Get it - wounds & injuries?)

Knife wounds include 3 very major (2) stab and (1) slice/cut wound to the throat; 3 not so severe stab wounds under an ear; several knife? scratches (possibly scrapes?) to neck or face; and knife-point pricks to hands (her defensive resistance).

And perhaps 30 bruises. Bruises due to being grabbed/held hard by Rudy's firm or loose grip, or being pushed or knocked into hard object (wall, furniture, floor). many bruises can be inflicted in just a few seconds of being grabbed and shoved. Number of wounds does not indicate prolonged struggle or combat.

Italian Medical examiner Lalli stated wounds consistent with being attacked by one attacker or by multiple attackers. (Mignini fired him for concluding it could be one attacker. Lalli committed heresy.)

Forensic engineer Ron Hendry concluded she was attacked/restrained/controlled by one strong male attacker armed with a knife.

 

[andreajo]

One needs to understand that the so-called wounds really consist if two different types of occurrences. There are knife wounds and bruise injuries. (Get it - wounds & injuries?)

Knife wounds include 3 very major (2) stab and (1) slice/cut wound to the throat; 3 not so severe stab wounds under an ear; several knife? scratches (possibly scrapes?) and knife-point pricks to hands (her defensive resistance).

And perhaps 30 bruises. Bruises due to being grabbed/held hard by Rudy's firm or loose grip, or being pushed or knocked into hard object (wall, furniture, floor). many bruises can be inflicted in just a few seconds of being grabbed and shoved. Number of wounds does not indicate prolonged struggle or combat.

Italian Medical examiner Lalli stated wounds consistent with being attacked by one attacker or by multiple attackers. (Mignini fired him his heresy.)

Forensic engineer Ron Hendry concluded she was attacked/restrained/controlled by one strong male attacker armed with a knife.

Thanks, Strozzi. So the multiple attacker argument would go 'lots of bruises because she was restrained by accomplices; bruises caused by restraint' and 'few knife wounds because she was restrained by accomplices'?

I personally go with the majority of the professionals who studied the autopsy results and said that you can't tell how many attackers there were from the injuries. I subscribe to the lone attacker theory myself. I am just trying to understand the arguments propounded for multiple attackers, as they have at times seemed to be contradictory to me.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What are you Coulsdon, a politician? Have some courage. Address the questions. They are straightforward. How about some straightforward answers?

Courage, interesting. Well I’ll answer a question in the manner of my choosing, pretty like everyone else here.

I have always drawn a distinction between the ongoing discussion here and how evidence is presented or dealt with in court. Indeed, the discussion adheres to the memberships rules essentially and as such has little to do with Italian court procedure. Sadly, winning an argument here doesn’t necessarily translate to what happens in court, I do not understand why Amanda and or Raffaele defence aren’t arguing the points being raised here, do you?

 

[Diocletus]

Sorry no I meant to actually object to points being made, interrupt what is being said. So it could all come down to whether they (professional judges) have read the case file and what is actually in the case file.

Not much of a trial, then, is it?

 

[Diocletus]

Mach just tweeted this from Crini:

Crini: no defence wounds, no fight bruises, nothing under nails, bruises indicate forced restraint of victim; how she was immobilized

I get so confused about this multiple attacker argument. Here Crini says fewer wounds means multiple attackers. I have also read the argument that OMG she had over 40 wounds. So many wounds means multiple attackers!

Can somebody help me to understand this better?

There is a simple formula for this:

<40 wounds = multiple attackers
>40 wounds = multiple attackers
40 wounds = Knox and Sollecito did it

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

looks like prosecution is asking RS and AK be jailed for the rest of the process.

As I understand it, it is in the case of a conviction, as opposed to the rest of the process.

 

[GreyFox]

looks like prosecution is asking RS and AK be jailed for the rest of the process.

They can ask all they want.

I wonder how fair all of the Italian general public will feel about locking up Raf at Crini's request knowing Knox is free in America.

I would be inclined to think some of the people in Italy would feel it's a harsh move since at best he was believed to be Knox's patsy.

He may gain enough support for locals to finally take a closer look at the case ?

 

[Strozzi]

Thanks, Strozzi. So the multiple attacker argument would go 'lots of bruises because she was restrained by accomplices; bruises caused by restraint' and 'few knife wounds because she was restrained by accomplices'?

I personally go with the majority of the professionals who studied the autopsy results and said that you can't tell how many attackers there were from the injuries. I subscribe to the lone attacker theory myself. I am just trying to understand the arguments propounded for multiple attackers, as they have at times seemed to be contradictory to me.

Notice to reader - the following contains graphic description of knife wounds.

If you grab someone by the upper arm and they twist and turn or more in resisting, your grip can cause multiple bruises in a few seconds. More in 10 seconds of holding them. Knock them hard into the floor where they bang their face or mouth area, and you have more bruises in a very swift 1 second movement. What I'm getting at is that an attacker can cause a large number (30) of bruises in just 20 - 60 seconds of struggle by grabbing/gripping the victim, knocking her into hard surfaces, and shoving or slamming her face-first into the floor.

If you put a knife blade to the side of someone's neck or head and they twist or otherwise move, your blade can cause one or several scratchs or scrapes, or a slice.

If you hold your knife point to the side of a victim's head under their ear and they move, you can cause several shallow stabs in a very short period of time as the victim resists and you try to control her.

The grave knife wounds to the throat were caused by Rudy behind her, having her down on her hands and knees, grabbing/gripping her in the chin area with his left hand (bruises show this) from behind her, and with his right hand putting his knife to her throat. Two very serious deep stab wounds and a very serious deep cut/slice wound.

The depth of the two serious stab wounds was about half the depth of the blade of the knife seized from Raffaele's kitchen drawer. That blade is too wide to have caused the stab wounds and the blade is too long to have been used to stab the victim the depth that she was stabbed (insert only partial depth of the blade??? Not likely.).

 

[acbytesla]

Courage, interesting. Well I’ll answer a question in the manner of my choosing, pretty like everyone else here.

I have always drawn a distinction between the ongoing discussion here and how evidence is presented or dealt with in court. Indeed, the discussion adheres to the memberships rules essentially and as such has little to do with Italian court procedure. Sadly, winning an argument here doesn’t necessarily translate to what happens in court, I do not understand why Amanda and or Raffaele defence aren’t arguing the points being raised here, do you?

Clearly the court proceedings in Italy have little to do with justice. Not that this forum has anything to do with justice either.

Of course you can answer or ignore any question posed. Never the less, I've read your posts for years and this artful dodge or yours isn't really becoming of someone who "says" that they are interested in a fair appraisal of the evidence.

 

[NancyS]

The number of wounds doesn't mean anything - I currently have about six small bruises on my legs and about four on my arms, mainly from being jumped on by a 2-year-old. The only person who is properly qualified to comment is the coroner - and his conclusion was that injuries were consistent with a lone attacker.

What would happen if the defence decided to make up all kinds of nonsense in their closing statements? Is it only the prosecution that can do this?

 

[Diocletus]

They can ask all they want.

I wonder how fair all of the Italian general public will feel about locking up Raf at Crini's request knowing Knox is free in America.

I would be inclined to think some of the people in Italy would feel it's a harsh move since at best he was believed to be Knox's patsy.

He may gain enough support for locals to finally take a closer look at the case ?

Ah, yes, of course they are. Would be very interesting if they used that to seek extradition of Amanda Knox prior to a final conviction. I think that we would see an amazing spectacle.

 

[andreajo]

The number of wounds doesn't mean anything - I currently have about six small bruises on my legs and about four on my arms, mainly from being jumped on by a 2-year-old. The only person who is properly qualified to comment is the coroner - and his conclusion was that injuries were consistent with a lone attacker.

What would happen if the defence decided to make up all kinds of nonsense in their closing statements? Is it only the prosecution that can do this?

Are you sure you weren't attacked by multiple two-year olds?

I am not trying to determine factual reality from the number of wounds. I am just trying to understand conflicting arguments. I accept Dr. Lalli's assessment.

 

[andreajo]

Notice to reader - the following contains graphic description of knife wounds.

If you grab someone by the upper arm and they twist and turn or more in resisting, your grip can cause multiple bruises in a few seconds. More in 10 seconds of holding them. Knock them hard into the floor where they bang their face or mouth area, and you have more bruises in a very swift 1 second movement. What I'm getting at is that an attacker can cause a large number (30) of bruises in just 20 - 60 seconds of struggle by grabbing/gripping the victim, knocking her into hard surfaces, and shoving or slamming her face-first into the floor.

If you put a knife blade to the side of someone's neck or head and they twist or otherwise move, your blade can cause one or several scratchs or scrapes, or a slice.

If you hold your knife point to the side of a victim's head under their ear and they move, you can cause several shallow stabs in a very short period of time as the victim resists and you try to control her.

The grave knife wounds to the throat were caused by Rudy behind her, having her down on her hands and knees, grabbing/gripping her in the chin area with his left hand (bruises show this) from behind her, and with his right hand putting his knife to her throat. Two very serious deep stab wounds and a very serious deep cut/slice wound.

The depth of the two serious stab wounds was about half the depth of the blade of the knife seized from Raffaele's kitchen drawer. That blade is too wide to have caused the stab wounds and the blade is too long to have been used to stab the victim the depth that she was stabbed (insert only partial depth of the blade??? Not likely.).

Agreed! A likely scenario.

 

[Dan O.]

First of all, Rudy has no credibility, period. Second, to me, this again looks like a contrivance based on instructions from the prosecution or Rudy's lawyers. "Look, we're trying to establish the claim that Meredith and Amanda didn't get along, that Meredith thought Amanda used too much pot, had too many lovers, and that maybe Meredith even thought she was a thief." Every word that is written is intended to make the reader think a certain way.

That is a possibility that the diary was creates after consultation with his lawyer. I found it curious that the diary was not dated. The key that I was trying to present was that Rudy was using information that he would not have learned from meredith. There is no drawer in Amanda's room. But there is one in Laura's room which had bee left open which is uncharacteristic for the otherwise immaculately tidy room.

Could Rudy's lawyer have already seen the crime scene photos at this early date?

Several questions come to mind. Why was Meredith looking for money while Rudy was there? Does Meredith's family think she was given to language like, "That whore of doper?"

Isn't this what girls do, in the middle of having oral sex they excuse themselves so they can check that their rent money is still in the drawer with their lingerie? This part of Rudy's story was already there in the Skype call from before Rudy was arrested. Nobody would have known that the money was there except the thief that took it unless you accept Rudy's story that he was invited into the cottage to have oral sex with Meredith.

No mention of socks.

Are those not socks in the drawer I showed the picture of?

 

[andreajo]

There is a simple formula for this:

<40 wounds = multiple attackers
>40 wounds = multiple attackers
40 wounds = Knox and Sollecito did it

Thx. Now I get it!

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by Mary_H: Several questions come to mind. Why was Meredith looking for money while Rudy was there? Does Meredith's family think she was given to language like, "That whore of doper?"
Rudy may have written in his "diary" that Meredith said this but I find it impossible to be true as Rudy spoke no English and Meredith's Italian was elementary. How would Meredith know how to say in beginner Italian anything like "That whore of doper?" It is just more fabrication from Rudy and probably involves evidence fabrication under direction of his attorney.

It reminds me of when Prosecutor Mignini took on the pure role of notary and Amanda alleged wrote or dictated a statement that began with the Italian legal preamble that Mignini needed her to allegedly state voluntarily in order to pretend her statement was spontaneous without his input or influence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Mary_H: Several questions come to mind. Why was Meredith looking for money while Rudy was there? Does Meredith's family think she was given to language like, "That whore of doper?"
Rudy may have written in his "diary" that Meredith said this but I find it impossible to be true as Rudy spoke no English and Meredith's Italian was elementary. How would Meredith know how to say in beginner Italian anything like "That whore of doper?" It is just more fabrication from Rudy and probably involves evidence fabrication under direction of his attorney.

It reminds me of when Prosecutor Mignini took on the pure role of notary and Amanda alleged wrote or dictated a statement that began with the Italian legal preamble that Mignini needed her to allegedly state voluntarily in order to pretend her statement was spontaneous without his input or influence.

Or what about Anna Donnino who bragged in court that she would often chat with perps in the interrogation room to develop a rapport with them? "Say honey, I might know why you don't remember... did I ever tell you I was in a car accident?....."

Knox needed a translator, not a mediator or a buddy. She also needed a lawyer.

 

[JREF2010]

Is it just me or does it seem for every one defense lawyer, the prosecution loads up 3 or 4 talking heads each day? Reminiscent of Massei's courtroom.
Why was Pacelli allowed? I'll guess, to offer more hate mongering for Amanda, in front of the new puppet judges, most likely, and the Daily Mail. The Lumumba was final already! Why was he allowed? (to support the prosecution, with the go ahead wink by Nencini it seems to me.)

Nencini seems to have a full day of prosecution vicious attacks from numerous lawyers while the defense has one lawyer speak. Maresca adds a few more lawyers to get more floor slandering time too.

The fact Nencini asked to record the immediate arrest doesn't seem like a action of a Judge leaning to acquittal either. Why would he ask for the specifics? He knows the standard process, why would he need the requests unless maybe to show support for the motion.

Also it was Judges in Florentine that took down Franks blog too, right? There lies the corruption and politics. As known in the US as Republicans versus Demmocrats. Truth is not the goal, and in this case the Florentine system will vote for their favorite party, imo.


Amanda is safe, but Raffaele would be walking on thin ice it seems. Raffaele will have to fear the pack of wolves alone this time.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, based on the latest pronouncements from the Kerchers mouthpiece, I see nothing but sleaze.

Not terribly surprised, though, since this is consistent with everything we know to date.

 

[moodstream]

Is it just me or does it seem for every one defense lawyer, the prosecution loads up 3 or 4 talking heads each day? Reminiscent of Massei's courtroom.
Why was Pacelli allowed? I'll guess, to offer more hate mongering for Amanda, in front of the new puppet judges, most likely, and the Daily Mail. The Lumumba was final already! Why was he allowed? (to support the prosecution, with the go ahead wink by Nencini it seems to me.)

Nencini seems to have a full day of prosecution vicious attacks from numerous lawyers while the defense has one lawyer speak. Maresca adds a few more lawyers to get more floor slandering time too.

The fact Nencini asked to record the immediate arrest doesn't seem like a action of a Judge leaning to acquittal either. Why would he ask for the specifics? He knows the standard process, why would he need the requests unless maybe to show support for the motion.

Also it was Judges in Florentine that took down Franks blog too, right? There lies the corruption and politics. As known in the US as Republicans versus Demmocrats. Truth is not the goal, and in this case the Florentine system will vote for their favorite party, imo.


Amanda is safe, but Raffaele would be walking on thin ice it seems. Raffaele will have to fear the pack of wolves alone this time.

I could not agree more. It seems quanity is more important than quality over there, and crini just keeps pouring it on. Meanwhile, I don't think the defense has done a good job of bonding with the jury nor of delivering a strong forceful convincing defense.

The collective logic that the Supreme Court is so found of hinges on the necessity of a staged break in and tod. Each of these could have been smashed by the defense, but they were not.