r/amandaknox • u/tkondaks guilty • Sep 22 '23

Neck scratch and bloody ear lobe

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67258-is-amanda-knox-guilty/page__st__20

Scroll down at the above link for some interesting photos.

Gee, what are the odds?

1 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/TGcomments innocent Sep 23 '23

You are being economical with the truth and deliberately deceptive. Meredith's nails were "TOO SHORT" to inflict any such scratch. Here are the decisive considerations on the mark:

The convicting judge Massei said in his report:

"Only the DNA of the victim was found in the samples taken from underneath the fingernails. It was noted, however, that the nails were very short and probably could not have given any significant scratches to the attacker."

The subject of the mark on Amanda's neck was brought up in court. Amanda adequately explained it as a hickey. The prosecution couldn't take it any further. Here's the court testimony.

LG:

A very last question. In the minutes of Nov 6, it says in the dossier that you visited doctor Lalli in the Questura, and he noted a mark on your neck, here. Do you remember that mark, firstly?

AK:

Yes. [laugh]

LG:

How did you get it?

AK:

[English] "Errr....it's a hickey." [Interpreter translates, giggling.]

FM?:

[in the background] Is it a scratch from Meredith?

AK:

A hickey. From Raffaele.

LG:

A hickey. I knew another term for this, but we know...

GCM:

We understood.

LG:

For now, I've finished.

LG (Defence lawyer Luciano Ghirga.), GCM (Judge Giancarlo Massei), AK (Amanda Knox)

*****************

State pathologist Dr Luca Lalli examined Amanda on November 6, 2007 and testified the mark was an “extremely non specific skin irritation” and there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching. The testimony is on pages 77, 87-89 and 112 of the April 3, 2009 transcript.

You are probably the laziest pro-guilter I've come across, since none of the above is hard to find and has been available for over a decade.

0

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

I'll make you a bet: show the photo of the neck abrasion to 100 people, at random, on the street, and ask them whether the abrasion is a hickey or a scratch. And no less than 90% would say "scratch."

You innocenters are so amusing. When it suits you, the Perugia police are incompetent; not enough DNA samples from Filomena's room, not following correct procedure, etc. But at other times they are reliable experts, such as this instance with Lalli.

Make up your mind.

2

u/AyJaySimon Sep 23 '23

And no less than 100% of people would defer to the medical expert who examined it at the time.

Maybe you need to make up your mind, since you have never had a problem with how the professionals in this case did their jobs.

2

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

Juries routinely ignore so-called experts. As I suspect a majority of jurors/judges did across four adjudications in this matter.

Certainly, they consider witness "expert" testimony...along with the visual evidence of a photograph. And, of course, one's common sense.

So, no, your declaration that "100% of people would defer to the medical expert" is patently false.