That's different than mopping up. Those towels probably have something to do with remorse or rape.
"Something to do with remorse" or "something to do with rape".
Besides the fact that "
something to do" is bit vague and means "
no clue"...,
I will have to point out that: the theory of a
post-mortem rape
is contradicted by the evidence.
Oh, I know you don't like what the autopsy found. It was done by some Italian Spaghetti Gynecologist so it must be easy for you to throw it in the dumpster without looking at it together with that part of humanity who are not Knox's relatives and white friends.
Maybe your theory says that towels are needed to stanch blood so that he will manage to rape the body in a more clean manner. A rather organized guy. That would be a form of cleaning of the scene, anyway.
But since there was no post-mortem rape, together with the "no clue" part we should ad "contrary to the evidence".
Well, "something to do with remorse", it's a second theory. In your scenario, do you think he is struck by remorse before or after the
post-mortem rape? Don't knoe why but I suppose you would place it after.
How do think the towels would contribute to ease remorse? It's an interesting line of thought. Maybe trying to dry up the blood so that would make it disappear from the view?
Yet, this would also be a form of cleanup.
Sorry, none of those theories is convincing. Im' not saying they are impossible, but they are weak. They have no content, they lack consistence.
However the most important element to bear in mind to this regard is that a post-mortem rape is contrary to the evidence.
Let's go further on these few points.
Who says that they were so wet that blood had to be trailing off of them?
Who says? Certainly not me. This is
your scenario, it's precisely
the FOAs' scenario.
Your theory is that Guede washed his trousers under the showers or washed the end of his trousers in the bidet.
When you wash trousers, you need to soak them with water. Even if you wash just one leg.
If you soak them with water, they will drip.
If they drip, there will be a trail of visible drops.
There isn't any. You will need to review the theory:
physical evidence is contrary to the scenario that he washed his trousers inside the flat.
(this is the second severe inconsistency out of two points within the list in your latest post)
No, he didn't wash the bathmat: it has a giant bloody footprint on it. He didn't clean up anything except his own clothes.
The theory is that he
washed, rather than generically "cleaned", his cloths.
Now, what happens is: there
is actually some evidence that a few other things have been cleaned. Some are maybe minor elements of circumstantial evidence (like the dripping on the edge of the door) but some are quite stronger, like that half of his shoeprint has disappeared (and re-appeared in luminol). Another piece of evidence is that the bathmat was completely soaked with water (this is how Raffaele Sollecito also describes it in his book). Some further evidence of this is that the floor around the bathmat is clean. Yes I know somebody would contest this, yet the objections and alternative theories (towels on floor etc.) are not very consistent, and anyway they are a kind of cleaning the scene too: they would suggest the same care and same concern about not leaving footprints. Further evidence is the towels themselves, because whatever "purpose" you like to imagine (remorse, rape etc.) the practical use of towels and rags points to the action of cleaning.
But let's imagine for a moment that it was not Guede who washed his foot but consider rather the scenario that it was Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who washed their own bodies, their limbs, and maybe not in the shower but in the basin and bidet. After that, the towels they used to dry themselves could turn useful also for walking on them to avoid getting the floor too dirty, or use them to move on blood pools without leaving prints; but anyway, in some way or another there is the change that the towels might retain some blood on them. So, if that happens, the only solution would be to take them where the body is, throw them there and leave them there.
Obviously, he did it to delay discovery of the dead body. His turd isn't a crime and was probably the last thing on his mind.
Well, if he wanted to delay the discovery of the dead body it would have been easy to conceal the biggest part of blood in the bathroom too, he might have thrown the bathmat inside the room, instead of washing it.
He also might have taken care of cleaning his visible bloody shoeprints: he was walking in sticky bloody substance.
But in fact, to delay the discovery of the body
would make little sense for him: timings of discovery would indeed matter if the culprit is her roommate, but would make little difference to a burglar; his obvious first interest, if he ever took care of altering some part of the scene, would be to remove the traces that may point to
himself, what could be connected to his identity, that would be even more important than delaying the timings of the discovery. Rudy fled by train, but he didn't flee within the following 3 or 4 hours. In fact he fled only
two days later when the body had been already discovered.
Is this the same autopsy report that said she had consensual sex? She obviously could have been stabbed shortly before he raped her. I doubt that the autopsy report says that, and if it does, it's wrong. I've learned that Italian technicians are far from infallible.
If it says so, it's wrong. Priceless. Of course '
Italian technicians' are always a failure when they find something that proves Knox is guilty.
Dr. Lalli, cautiously said he thought the killing could have been the result multiple assailants, but was also possible that it was a single perpetrator
if the attack was protracted for some time, and if it was conducted with escalating violence.
(This means, it was certainly not one sincle killer who stroke and killed).
Dr. Lalli also said that there were small bruises on her vagina, and this, he cautiously said, to his knowledge, meant it was not possible to establish for sure that she was a victim of a sexual violence, since in rare occasions similar bruises may occasionally occur on consensual sexual activities.
However it, it is not Dr. Lalli's report what lead to conclude for probable sexual violence: it was the reports of two gynecologists, one of them Prof. Marchionni.
But one thing is out of question: the bruises occurred
before the stabbing, and no way the stabbing could have occurred
shortly before he raped her.
Nobody actually questioned or even ever discussed the option that the bruises could be subsequent to the mortal wounds. And the fact is that it won't be possible to bring reasonable arguments for a crazy theory like that.
Bruises indicate normal peripheral blood pressur. lively conditions.
The bruises existed.
Meredith had a normal blood pressure. Those bruises were also surrounded by a red hedema. Dead people don't have blood peripheral pressure and don't have bruises. Also people who are bleeding to death won't develop any bruises. Meredith suffered a sexual violence while she was still well alive.
Guede's blood? This is news. There is no evidence of it. No trace of it in the bathroom where he allegedly washed himself. There was no DNA of him on the drain of the bidet and by the inside the basin. He would have washed his wounded hands and would have managed to leave no blood cells there.
Oh yeah, I guess he did step in the semen. So that footprint was made while he was pulling up his pants.
Let me understand: you are saying he left those prints
while the pillow was under the victim's body?
As for the FOAs scenario the pillow was under Meredith's body duing the
post-mortem sexual violence. You are sayng he removed Meredith's body from the over pillow where it was lying, took away the pillow, just a moment so that he could step four or five times on it, and then he put the pillow back under the body again?
Not impressed. Most of these tings are either things the police probably missed or that don't need to exist anyway.
Evidence that
don't need to exist. Looks like written by Amanda Knox.
He washed briefly upstairs, and then afterwards he rinsed his clothes and got new pants downstairs
.
So he rinsed his clothes
twice? First "briefly", and then more thoroughly?
Or maybe you are saying he only washed his bare foot upstairs? In that event, it would mean he decided to wahs his bare foot despite it was his shoes that might have been stained with blood while his
bare foot must have been clean, given that he was weraing shoes.
Maybe you want to add some further explanation. Like for example, hod did it happen that he walked back from the locked exit door to Meredith's bedroom door a second time, in order to lock it, but this time he managed to leave no
trace of blood shoperints at all, not even detectable with luminol.
