Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

Status
Not open for further replies.
What does everyone make of the somewhat separation of Sollecito from Knox in defense closing statements? Bongiorno points out that her client is not mentioned in relation to Knox's slander statements, her client was not there, the prosecution has tunnel vision, the translator was incompetent, 45 days on the bra clasp means contamination is possible. She doesn't address the knife because she doesn't have to. That's evidence of Knox, and we know she was in his apartment.

Is it Maori that orates next? Do I have the name right? Is this another of Sollecito's lawyers? I think Sollecito's may be somewhat disappointed in his lawyer's court presentation (see latest Frank Svarzo article), where she was wielding knifes and being dramatic. Stereotypically, Italians are known for being dramatic, but not in a knife wielding way. She could have made her point without the acting.

Did Knox's lawyer close yet? Is that Maori?
I noticed the separation as well. I guess it's extra protection "in case".

Yes, Luca Maori is a Sollecito lawyer - the 9th was taken up with the Sollecito defense team's summation, and Knox's defense closing was the last court date prior.

The prosecution and civils closed as well - nothing left but the rebuttals on the 20th, and deliberation and verdict on the 30th now.
 
I noticed the separation as well. I guess it's extra protection "in case".

Yes, Luca Maori is a Sollecito lawyer - the 9th was taken up with the Sollecito defense team's summation, and Knox's defense closing was the last court date prior.

The prosecution and civils closed as well - nothing left but the rebuttals on the 20th, and deliberation and verdict on the 30th now.

My impression was Bongiorno spent considerable time defending Amanda. She talked about internalized false confessions, etc. She addressed the knife. Nobody, including the lawyers thinks a guilty verdict for one but not the other is realistic.
 
What do you mean by this "supposed"? It is what he testified, he said at most 2-3 hours.

It happens that the forensic pathology literature agrees with that, as the quotes I gave in previous thread prove. Start of gastric emptying may be delayed on rare occasions, that's why 2-3 hours after meal is the reasonable limit forensic literature agrees upon.

2-3 hours since the pizza meal matches best 9pm, the moment Meredith came home and was ambushed by the burglar Guede.
Because it contradicts the earlier quote. Either Massei or Dr. Lalli is not clear. The literature says 20 minutes is normal. Not 2-3 hours. Everybody eats several times a day, and everybody knows that there is nothing normal about walking around with a full stomach for 3 hours. The literature agrees with me. I just gave the link. If you have such a delay you should go see a doctor.
 
Because it contradicts the earlier quote. Either Massei or Dr. Lalli is not clear. The literature says 20 minutes is normal. Not 2-3 hours.
Lalli didn't say 2-3 hours is normal or the average. There is an interval that is possible. He said death at most 2-3 hours after the meal. The literature I quoted says the same.

Which quote does it contradict? There was no contradiction in Lalli's testimony.
 
Lalli didn't say 2-3 hours is normal or the average. There is an interval that is possible. He said death at most 2-3 hours after the meal. The literature I quoted says the same.

Which quote does it contradict? There was no contradiction in Lalli's testimony.
Yes, I already gave it.
He also stated that while it takes 2-3 hours for emptying to take place, ‚when it starts the emptying is fairly quick, when food has reached ...that semi-liquid or fluid aspect... emptying happens quickly‛ (page 32, transcripts).
3 Hours is not fairly quick so there is a contradiction. Dr Lalli says that death is 2-3 hours after the meal because otherwise the stomach would be empty. Either he makes a mistake to not include the empty duodenum in this reasoning or he is misquoted by Massei.

'Fairly quick' is the 20 minutes that I pointed out, and there is no reason to assume that Meredith has some kind of rare disease. At 6pm everything is normal and whatever she ate would digest just normally reaching the duodenum within 20 minutes just like with most other people on the planet when they eat.

ETA: I should add that dr Lalli might have realized that the duodenum being 'empty' was not totally reliable as also pointed out in the Massei report.
 
If someone was pulling at her bra from behind trying to tear it, then suddenly cut it, she would be propelled forward toward the knife perhaps.
 
If someone was pulling at her bra from behind trying to tear it, then suddenly cut it, she would be propelled forward toward the knife perhaps.
That's true. And it is also true that if she were being restrained and suddenly pulled loose it might happen as well.

She had bruises on the inside of the elbow area, on both arms, as though her arms had been held behind her back. (This is one of the features which made some experts believe in multiple attackers: One would need 3 hands to pin someone's arms back that strongly, while holding a knife to them at the same time. MOO )

A long swath of Meredith's hair also lay, among other long strands , in the pooled blood where her body had lain, indicating violent hair pulling , and there was injury to the back area of the scalp as well. It's as if she ran forward and then was yanked back by her hair. Truly a violent and terrible struggle, no matter how it went down.....
 
Yes, I already gave it.

3 Hours is not fairly quick so there is a contradiction. Dr Lalli says that death is 2-3 hours after the meal because otherwise the stomach would be empty. Either he makes a mistake to not include the empty duodenum in this reasoning or he is misquoted by Massei.

I think the mistake is on your side.

The stomach empties into the duodenum. Lalli said that ToD is at most 2-3 hours from the meal because the stomach was full and there was nothing yet in the duodenum. I.e. the emptying hadn't started yet.

As I quoted before, no gastric emptying into duodenum occurs post mortem.
 
She had bruises on the inside of the elbow area, on both arms, as though her arms had been held behind her back. (This is one of the features which made some experts believe in multiple attackers: One would need 3 hands to pin someone's arms back that strongly, while holding a knife to them at the same time. MOO )

A long swath of Meredith's hair also lay, among other long strands , in the pooled blood where her body had lain, indicating violent hair pulling , and there was injury to the back area of the scalp as well. It's as if she ran forward and then was yanked back by her hair. Truly a violent and terrible struggle, no matter how it went down.....

bbm part is wrong. She had bruises on one elbow.

If she was knocked out or dazed because of the hit to the head, there would be no need to restrain her during stabbing. Of course the slight bruises on her arm could indicate someone grabbed her to forcefully drag her or turn her around.
 
That's true. And it is also true that if she were being restrained and suddenly pulled loose it might happen as well.

She had bruises on the inside of the elbow area, on both arms, as though her arms had been held behind her back. (This is one of the features which made some experts believe in multiple attackers: One would need 3 hands to pin someone's arms back that strongly, while holding a knife to them at the same time. MOO )

A long swath of Meredith's hair also lay, among other long strands , in the pooled blood where her body had lain, indicating violent hair pulling , and there was injury to the back area of the scalp as well. It's as if she ran forward and then was yanked back by her hair. Truly a violent and terrible struggle, no matter how it went down.....



Thanks for that info. I didn't realize her hair had been pulled. That seems much more like a female thing to do IMO. So does scratching someone on the neck, as in Amanda's scratch under her chin.
 
bbm part is wrong. She had bruises on one elbow.

If she was knocked out or dazed because of the hit to the head, there would be no need to restrain her during stabbing. Of course the slight bruises on her arm could indicate someone grabbed her to forcefully drag her or turn her around.
I had always understood it to be both inner elbows. Where is that information?
 
In Massei and in Lalli's testimony on Amanda's blog.
On IIP, Hendry's synopsis of Lalli's examination says, notable bruise markings were noted to both elbow regions.
 
Just making a note for future reference here:

Dr. Lalli's pathology exam also noted bruising to the hips and to the right leg. This bruising was not noticeable in the first crime scene photos (bruising sometimes takes hours to show ).
 
On IIP, Hendry's synopsis of Lalli's examination says, notable bruise markings were noted to both elbow regions.

I guess it's Hendry's mistake. Lalli's testimony is more clear about it.
 
I guess it's Hendry's mistake. Lalli's testimony is more clear about it.
I don't think so, but I'll check.

I wager Hendry as a retired expert professional is too meticulous to have such an error standing on his site for years.

Can you kindly give me the pp #s where Dr. Lalli notes this?

It appears in this Ground Report piece as well, : "She was bruised on both elbows"

http://groundreport.com/the-murder-of-meredith-kercher/
 
I don't think so, but I'll check.

I wager Hendry as a retired expert professional is too meticulous to have such an error standing on his site for years.

Can you kindly give me the pp #s where Dr. Lalli notes this?

It appears in this Ground Report piece as well, : "She was bruised on both elbows"

http://groundreport.com/the-murder-of-meredith-kercher/


Massei reports:

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

Lalli says about the same on page 16 of his testimony.

I couldn't find any court source stating both arms were bruised.
 
Massei reports:

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

Lalli says about the same on page 16 of his testimony.

I couldn't find any court source stating both arms were bruised.
OK, duly noted. I didn't have access to the Massei document in the past, and had taken Hendry for a sound source.
 
Massei reports:

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

Lalli says about the same on page 16 of his testimony.

I couldn't find any court source stating both arms were bruised.
Hendry really badly misrepresents this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,189
Total visitors
2,368

Forum statistics

Threads
589,985
Messages
17,928,700
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top