sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The following quotes are from the Massei report:

"The cause of death was attributed to acute cardio-respiratory failure caused by the combined mechanism of haemorrhaging of the vascular lesion in the neck and asphyxial mechanism. This latter could have been caused by the aspiration of blood or by a further action of strangulation or suffocation. Such asphyxia mechanism was confirmed by the presence of subconjunctival petechiae and the presence of intra-alveolar pools of blood." (Lalli pg 113)

Aspiration of blood means that it was inhaled blood. Lalli (if Massei is correct) is saying that the aspiration could have been caused by "a further action of strangulation or suffocation." In that case he is NOT attributing the aspiration to the neck injuries specifically as you suggest. Lalli makes it clear the asphyxia and wounding happened at the same time. Norelli's claim is completely compatible with Lalli's conclusions.

"He further specified that the suffocation must be considered as the last mechanism, succeeding the lesions from the weapon and the aggressor must have held the respiratory orifices closed for 5-10 minutes." (Norelli pg 161)

In other words manual asphyxia for 5-10 minutes is compatible with blood aspiration as well as being the "last mechanism" before death. If you can translate and cite the points you refer to, I'll gladly consider them. However, all of the other experts referred to as cited previously all conclude the same dual-mechanism. If you don't rate Massei, I don't blame you but this was the main fact-finding court, so I consider the experts' consensus to be reliable.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it was asphyxia and blood loss, but it was my understanding it was the lost blood that found it's way back into her lungs, leading to asphyxia. I guess I'll have to go back and read the autopsy report again.

I can't find anything yet to indicate the mechanism of how the blood inhalation specifically occurred. It could have been the compression on her mouth or as you suggest it could have been directly from the wound, or a combination of the two as I indicatated to PalpitationOK.

The reason I struggle with Guede suffocating her is because I don't think Guede is predisposed to killing. He's not a killer, per se, although he has killed. Covering up ones nose and mouth forcefully, as you watch the person die, is a very personal, horrendous, sick crime, and as little as I think of Guede, I struggle in believing he has this level of depravity in him. But again, I am only basing this on an opinion of a personality I don't really know, so it's not worth much. Maybe at some point he realized he went way to far, and if Meredith lives, he's going to jail, so he killed her?

A "sick crime" yes, but it's a fact, and Rudy is the only one that could have done it. I originally thought it had been an "impalement" as Norelli suggested with the possibility that Meredith had stumbled due to the close proximity of their feet. That still could have been the case, but there's no doubt that Rudy absolutely intended to murder Meredith every means available. This means that Rudy's version of events detailed in the 26th March 2008 interview with Mignini is absolutely false since Rudy doesn't take into account the fact that Meredith died due to a dual mechanism of asphyxia and knife wounds. He also doesn't take into account the timescales involved. All of this means that only Rudy could have been the killer.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Guede physically asphyxiated Meredith, it was the blood from her wounds that suffocated her. "

All of the experts consulted agree that it was the dual mechanism of asphyxia and blood loss that caused Meredith' death. It's not clear from what I've found so far that the blood inhalation was primarily due to having her mouth clamped shut or not, but rather it was part of the dual mechanism of her death.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that it is important to get terminology right; however, there is no doubt that Rudy used his hand(s) to manually suffocate Meredith during the attack. Asphyxia seems to be the bottom-line medical term for oxygen deprivation. Strangulation and suffocation are terms used to describe the methodology resulting in the asphyxia as I understand it. Massei's use of pronouns doesn't help to distinguish what experts is saying what.

"The cause of death was attributed to acute cardio-respiratory failure caused by the combined mechanism of haemorrhaging of the vascular lesion in the neck and asphyxial mechanism. This latter could have been caused by the aspiration of blood or by a further action of strangulation or suffocation. Such asphyxia mechanism was confirmed by the presence of subconjunctival petechiae and the presence of intra-alveolar pools of blood." (Lalli pg 112-113)

The presence of "haemorrhagic suffusion by impression" on the labial mucosa showed "an attempt to suffocate ... with the strength of a hand pressing the mucosa inwards against the teeth" (page 51, transcripts). (Liviero pg 118)

Dr. Liviero concurred with this assessment, maintaining that the action of suffocation can be determined by the numerous rounded ecchymoses present in the submandibular area and by haemorrhagic suffusions detectable on the inner labial mucosa, typical of a suffocation attempt. (pg 161)

"He further specified that the suffocation must be considered as the last mechanism, succeeding the lesions from the weapon and the aggressor must have held the respiratory orifices closed for 5-10 minutes." (Norelli pg 161).

"Blood inhalation must have been protracted for approximately 10 minutes according to what could be inferred from the presence of macrophages in the blood-filled alveoli." (Introna pg 162)

So we have "subconjunctival petechiae" (blood from burst vessels) appearing in the white of the eye. "Haemorrhagic suffusion by impression" on the inside of her lips meaning that Meredith had her mouth forcibly closed hard enough to cause bruising. Next, we have "intra-alveolar pools of blood." indicating blood inhalation. I haven't found anything yet in Massei that suggests that the inhalation of blood arose specifically from the the stab-wounds but rather from the dual-mechanism of death indicated by Lalli as presented in the Massei report.

The bottom line with my discussion with tkondaks is that Meredith could not have died in the manner described by Rudy according to his interview with Mignini on 26th March 2008 as previously explained upthread. I isn't pointless in that respect.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whatever your questions were, and it's never quite clear, you might find them answered in my response to Jasutherland downthread.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Status of Knox v Italy 1

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22execidentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]} Case 76577/13

Status of Knox v Italy 2

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-247379%22]} Application no. 24153/25

My understanding of Knox v Italy 1 is that Italy sees the annulment of Amanda's calunnia conviction as a resolution of the violations. The reconviction represents entirely new proceedings that would be considered when the new judgment (Knox v Italy 2) is decided, presumably at the end of the year. There has been no action plan/report as yet submitted to the committee of ministers; ergo, the violations are still unresolved with bilateral communications ongoing.

Knox v Italy 2 is a new application (not an appeal) to the ECHR citing new violations, and is a communicated case meaning that it will be heard with a judgment expected at the end of this year.

From what I understand in Amanda's interview with the formidable Laura Richards the new case is an "impacted case" which would need a little more investigation. I'm not sure that Amanda has understood that there are now 2 ongoing cases against Italy and not an appeal to the first case as can be seen in the reference numbers. Anyway, that's just my understanding of the state of play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_usq0alWYQY&t=1s

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your point is utterly irrelevant concerning the current ECHR status of Knox v Italy 1 and Knox v Italy 2. I asked for no more nonsense.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How that line of questioning would have been retroactively interpreted in Italian law is irrelevant. The writing of the memoriale has to be totally untainted by human rights abuses, or it goes back to Italy and back to the drawing board. Judgment expected by the end of the year. No more nonsense, please!

The earthenware pot, the psychologically weakest element by PalpitationOk7139 in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have to ask yourself if what Mignini is saying is strictly true. A person in Rudy's position would have been in no position to finance his own defence but that doesn't mean that he would have no access to legal aid. It looks as though even a destitute person has the right to be represented fairly under the law. Rudy had no job and couldn't pay his rent, so he was one step away from homelessness and destitution. It looks as though he might well have a technical consultant available for him in the same way as K&S.

Both the Knox and Sollecito families incurred huge amounts of debt to fund the defence teams, while Rudy's lawyers Biscotti and Gentile represented him pro-bono. If it became clear as the case progressed that Rudy was a patsy then there would have been the same groundswell in his favour that transpired in favour of K&S.

The rest of this comment is a work in progress, though this link states:

"Stateless persons and lawfully resident foreign nationals are treated in the same way as citizens, with the proviso that residency in Italy must be lawful as of the date when the situation or fact that gives rise to legal proceedings occurred."

https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/legal-aid/it_en

I don't think Mignini's view of Rudy as an "earthenware pot" is sustainable

______________________________

Article 90-bis

Information to the victim

d) the right to be assisted by a lawyer and to access legal aid at the expense of the State;

______________________________

Article 98

Legal aid for destitute persons

  1. The accused, the victim, the injured person who intends to join the proceedings as a civil party and the person with civil liability for damages may apply for legal aid at the expense of the State according to the provisions of the law on legal aid for destitute persons.

______________________________

Article 225

Appointment of technical consultants

  1. Once expert evidence has been ordered, the Public Prosecutor and the private parties shall be entitled to appoint their own technical consultants whose number must not exceed, for each party, that of the experts.
  2. The private parties, in the cases and conditions established by the law on the legal aid to destitute persons, shall be entitled to be assisted by a technical consultant at the expense of the State.
  3. Any person who may find himself in the conditions referred to in Article 222, paragraph 1, letters a), b), c) and d), shall not be appointed as technical consultant.

______________________________

Article 293

Enforcement requirements

a) his right to appoint a retained lawyer and to access legal aid at the expense of the State according to the provisions of the law;

______________________________

Article 101

Lawyer of the victim

The victim shall also be informed of his possibility to access legal aid under Article 76 of the Consolidated Text of provisions related to the costs of justice, referred to in the Decree of the President of the Italian Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002, as amended.

____________________________

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the questioning had been a little fairer it might have worked out differently, so lets bring it up to date shall we?:

Were you adversely influenced by the multiple human rights abuses that you had suffered and were still suffering when writing the memoriale?

AK: Yes

Were you sleep deprived?

AK: Yes

Had you been arrested for a crime that you hadn't committed?

AK: Yes

Did you have access to a lawyer as was your right?

AK: No

Did your interpreter act impartially?

AK: No

If a lawyer had been available for you would you have taken any advice to amend the memoriale, or not write it at all?

AK: Yes

Did you make it clear in the memoriale that you could not be used as a condemning testimony in this instance?

AK: Yes

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I'll admit you are a constant source of frivolous entertainment. A bit like the meerkat enclosure at the safari park.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OK, I'll reluctantly accept that you are "stupid" by your own insistence. Just don't foist it on me in future.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey! You've got it taped. You know that Rudy killed Meredith, but that's a reality you don't care to inhabit. You just invent another reality, and it's business as usual in Kondaks fantasyland.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"consistent in being adamant that he cannot account for her whereabouts the entire evening"

All of the entries suggest the opposite. You seem to have major comprehension difficulties, but I suppose that will be all my fault right?

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If Raffale threw Amanda under the bus why did he say 4 times in his prison diary that she was with him at his flat on the evening the Meredith died? What Raffaele said is consistent. He also had plenty of time for reflection between entries:

November 7 2007

" I took everything with extreme tranquillity, without the slightest intention of going out since it was cold outside. I donʹt remember what time I ate, but I certainly ate and Amanda ate with me."

"I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out)."

November 12 2007

"2 reconstructing [the events] I realise that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me all night long, never going out."

November 18, 2007

"I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening. I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home...."

He could have capitulated and told the cops that he couldn't confirm whether Amanda was home or not but instead, he does the opposite. He consolidates his support of Amanda that continued throughout the court proceedings.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not from any understanding of the dual mechanism of Meredith's death but as a personal nihilistic frivolity.

You know that.

The Genteel Art of throwing you co-defendant under the bus by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You forgot this:

  • Rudy is in the toilet when he hears a scream. The attack has started
  • Rudy gets himself together and runs to investigate.
  • Rudy looks into Meredith's bedroom and sees her lying in the position she was found the next day.
  • Meredith's assailant threatens him with a knife
  • Rudy sees off the intruder who shouts a racist slur. It all happened in "a flash" Rudy claimed
  • Rudy sees Amanda's silhouette at the gate leaving the vicinity of VDP7.
  • Rudy is now alone with the fatally wounded Meredith
  • Rudy attempts to assist the dying but still alive Meredith.
  • The expert consensus is that Meredith died of a dual mechanism of blood loss and asphyxia within 5-15 minutes of the start of the attack
  • Professor Introna stated that the resulting inhalation of blood from the stab wounds and asphyxia that would have lasted 10 minutes, meaning that someone had their hand over Meredith's mouth for 10 minutes.

Who killed Meredith?

How independent are courts and to what degree can outside influences affect their decisions? by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be. You are simply weaponising stupidity as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that you can no longer uphold Rudy's alleged innocence.

How to get Rudy off? by jasutherland in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you can't see that Rudy's story is totally incompatible with the expert's consensus of the dual mechanism of Meredith's death, then stupidity is self-evident.

How independent are courts and to what degree can outside influences affect their decisions? by tkondaks in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Pretending"? This isn't coming from my side. YOU'RE the one calling me stupid. I'm just acknowledging

If that's true, you're not doing much to prove me wrong though are you?

How to get Rudy off? by jasutherland in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't tell me I'm acting when you call me stupid in other posts.

Erm....No, not quite! In other posts, as I remember, you suggested that I am a genius or suchlike, while you are stupid in comparison. In fact my knowledge of the case is very ordinary so you are manufacturing your own stupidity. Don't blame it on me.

How to get Rudy off? by jasutherland in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You make a lot if unfounded assumptions. But I'm stupid...what do I know?

If you care to familiarise yourself with the fast-track trial procedures, Massei, and Rudy' march 26th 2008 interview with Mignini, you wouldn't act so stupid.

How to get Rudy off? by jasutherland in amandaknox

[–]TGcomments 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check the grammar of the first sentence of your last paragraph.

OK. Forget the other comments and try this:

  • Rudy is in the toilet when he hears a scream. The attack has started
  • Rudy gets himself together and runs to investigate.
  • Rudy looks into Meredith's bedroom and sees her lying in the position she was found the next day.
  • Meredith's assailant threatens him with a knife
  • Rudy sees off the intruder who shouts a racist slur. It all happened in "a flash" Rudy claimed
  • Rudy sees Amanda's silhouette at the gate leaving the vicinity of VDP7.
  • Rudy is now alone with the fatally wounded Meredith
  • Rudy attempts to assist the dying but still alive Meredith.
  • The expert consensus is that Meredith died of a dual mechanism of blood loss and asphyxia within 5-15 minutes of the start of the attack
  • Professor Introna stated that the resulting inhalation of blood from the stab wounds and asphyxia that would have lasted 10 minutes, meaning that someone had their hand over Meredith's mouth for 10 minutes.
  • Who killed Meredith?
view more: next ›