Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Picking out another cherry; in Amanda's testimony she says:

AK: Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving
in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all. When I got
there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police
officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that
they had been asking me days...all these days ever since it happened. For
instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and
I said I still didn't know, and so what they did is, they brought me into
another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat
everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night...

Now, why was it necessary for Amanda to repeat what she had just told the officers? Do Italian's have a particularly short memory or was there some unique aspect of the interrogation room that wasn't true of the waiting area.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Picking out another cherry; in Amanda's testimony she says:



Now, why was it necessary for Amanda to repeat what she had just told the officers? Do Italian's have a particularly short memory or was there some unique aspect of the interrogation room that wasn't true of the waiting area.

It is a standard method of police questioning.

 

[Dan O.]

A "standard method of police questioning" would involve producing a detailed records of the questions and answers. We see numerous references to these transcripts in the trial but why have we only seen cherry picked snippets from the transcripts themselves?

 

[stilicho]

I'll just answer your concerns about my own posts. I can't imagine why you selected those because they don't support your case in any way whatsoever--your case being that AK only "confessed" (actually accused Mr Lumumba) after being browbeaten or hit with hoses or some other kind of brutality you've concocted.

[Post 199]
Author : stilicho
Date : 6th December 2009 03:07 AM

After thirty hours with no sleep, food, and under constant harsh questioning, you'd probably blurt out whatever came to mind just to make it stop so you could eat and sleep and stop the suffering.

The length of the interrogation by Perugia police is certainly disputed. I have seen it, in the sympathetic Seattle press, variously set at six, fourteen, and more than 24 hours. Which was it? I've noticed that her defenders nearly always set it as long as possible. Why?

This was written before I knew that AK's original story changed after less than two hours of questioning as a witness and not as a suspect.

At the time, I was confused (without smoking marijuana) because the Seattle media was constantly changing their story about the length of her questioning. I didn't know that AK had been provided breakfast in the morning or that she had offered the police her written "gift".

Recall that many of us didn't know anything further than what the Marriott PR machine had concocted for our consumption. That includes the since-redacted claim that AK was guilty all because a cartwheel.

When I saw the constantly changing story about the length of her questioning, that sure set off the sceptic's alarm bells. Didn't it do the same for you? Or did you become interested in the case only after they had settled on a number?

[Post 293]

Author : stilicho
Date : 7th December 2009 12:21 AM

"The police interrogation wasn't even valid under Italian law and the accusation of character defamation lawsuit you claim was concluded has only been charged. No trial on this has occurred.

You're quite correct on the last part. I was under the impression she had already lost that case beforehand. You score!There you go. Your turn.

In this case you didn't just cherry-pick, Dan O. You forgot to correctly attribute only the bolded part to me. I was answering somebody's question about the defamation suit brought by Mr Lumumba against AK. I had thought the decision was already final due to some information I had misread. I was wrong and I admitted it rather than pretend I'd never said it.

The police "interrogation" (as the original poster framed it) was completely valid under Italian law. AK was there as a witness and of her own volition. The reason it was declared inadmissible was that her status had changed upon her declaration that she was in the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

I think it's very clear to anyone that AK did not realise that her attempt to implicate Mr Lumumba had also had the unintended consequence of implicating herself. Her vain attempt to undo the damage she knew she had done to her credibility only served to further implicate her because her voluntary "gift" was ruled admissible in court.

Rarely do murder suspects act with such aplomb regarding their own rights while in custody as AK did, Dan O. Most suspects listen to their lawyers and STFU. She didn't. As I've said many many times, her legal representation must absolutely cringe whenever she's given a chance to speak or write.

Here's one of my favourite exchanges between AK and the PM in JUN 2009:

PM: Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed, was it yours?

AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

PM: So the lamp was yours.

AK: I suppose it was.

PM: Was it missing from your room?

AK: You know, I didn't look.

PM: Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

AK: I don't know.

(Source: http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356199 )

In court, as a defendant in a murder case, AK cannot even bring herself to answer a very simple yes-or-no question. That isn't the only example but it must have had a huge impact on jurors watching and listening to a presumably innocent person go to such great lengths to avoid saying that her lamp was in Meredith's room. (Don't start now thinking that AK was guilty all because of a lamp).

I suspect you've never been on a jury, Dan O. When defendants cannot even answer simple questions like that it makes it difficult to believe them when answering important questions such as whether they murdered their roommate.

​

 

[stilicho]

A "standard method of police questioning" would involve producing a detailed records of the questions and answers. We see numerous references to these transcripts in the trial but why have we only seen cherry picked snippets from the transcripts themselves?

Because, if they were relevant, they would have been introduced by AK's lawyers.

It is not the job of the prosecutors to defend the defendant.

There are also large swaths of their "prison diaries" that have not been made available to the public, although there is little doubt the defence teams have the full texts. Why aren't you asking why Team Knox isn't publishing everything she wrote? Why aren't you asking why Team Knox was so quick to pull down her social networking sites?

What are they hiding?

 

[Fulcanelli]

A "standard method of police questioning" would involve producing a detailed records of the questions and answers. We see numerous references to these transcripts in the trial but why have we only seen cherry picked snippets from the transcripts themselves?

I keep telling you and you just don't seem to get it. The defence got the statements ruled out of the trial.

And I have made statements to the police before and the questions were not written down. Only what I had to say was written down. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue how things work.

 

[Dan O.]

I'll just answer your concerns about my own posts. I can't imagine why you selected those because they don't support your case in any way whatsoever--your case being that AK only "confessed" (actually accused Mr Lumumba) after being browbeaten or hit with hoses or some other kind of brutality you've concocted.

Are you having trouble keeping up with the conversation? I asked about the length of the interrogations and Fiona replied: "I suggest you read the thread.". What I posted was an extract of the thread of all posts relevant to the length of the interrogations.

This was written before I knew that AK's original story changed after less than two hours of questioning as a witness and not as a suspect.

Amanda never changed her story. Why do you persist with this lie?

Recall that many of us didn't know anything further than what the Marriott PR machine had concocted for our consumption. That includes the since-redacted claim that AK was guilty all because a cartwheel.

You should learn to search for balanced information and not rely on a single source. If someone were for instance to treat the PFM site as the gospel truth on this matter they would have a very skewed perspective.

When I saw the constantly changing story about the length of her questioning, that sure set off the sceptic's alarm bells. Didn't it do the same for you? Or did you become interested in the case only after they had settled on a number?

In this country the police keep logs of the interrogation sessions so it isn't that difficult to come up with the correct answer.

In this case you didn't just cherry-pick, Dan O. You forgot to correctly attribute only the bolded part to me. I was answering somebody's question about the defamation suit brought by Mr Lumumba against AK. I had thought the decision was already final due to some information I had misread. I was wrong and I admitted it rather than pretend I'd never said it.

If you look closely at that post you will see that I did put a quote on the piece that you quoted in your reply. This was a long post and a repeat of what was already said so I wasn't going to spend time adding fancy formatting.

The police "interrogation" (as the original poster framed it) was completely valid under Italian law. AK was there as a witness and of her own volition. The reason it was declared inadmissible was that her status had changed upon her declaration that she was in the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

The only source that Amanda made such a declaration is from the Italian police and they have provided no evidence to support it. Amanda has always denied it so you have nothing to support your claim.

I think it's very clear to anyone that AK did not realise that her attempt to implicate Mr Lumumba had also had the unintended consequence of implicating herself. Her vain attempt to undo the damage she knew she had done to her credibility only served to further implicate her because her voluntary "gift" was ruled admissible in court.

Again, this is only your claim that have not supported. I've told you where to find the support if it exists. I'm not your errand boy.

Rarely do murder suspects act with such aplomb regarding their own rights while in custody as AK did, Dan O. Most suspects listen to their lawyers and STFU. She didn't. As I've said many many times, her legal representation must absolutely cringe whenever she's given a chance to speak or write.

How was Amanda to know that the Italian justice system already drank the Kool-aid and would misinterpret everything she had to say.

Here's one of my favourite exchanges between AK and the PM in JUN 2009:

PM: Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed, was it yours?

AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

PM: So the lamp was yours.

AK: I suppose it was.

PM: Was it missing from your room?

AK: You know, I didn't look.

PM: Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

AK: I don't know.

What stat of mind are you in to interpret that as anything other than Amanda didn't know if her lamp was in her room that day or if Meredith had a similar lamp? Did Amanda have reason to use her lamp when she returned to the cottage?

In court, as a defendant in a murder case, AK cannot even bring herself to answer a very simple yes-or-no question. That isn't the only example but it must have had a huge impact on jurors watching and listening to a presumably innocent person go to such great lengths to avoid saying that her lamp was in Meredith's room. (Don't start now thinking that AK was guilty all because of a lamp).

Unless you start with a prejudiced position that Amanda put that lamp in Meredith's room, there is no evidence and plenty of contradictory testimony that Amanda was not in Meredith's room and therefor would not have seen the lamp there. Your comment really indicates that you are prejudiced against Amanda. What flavor is the Kool-aid that they are serving over at PMF?

I suspect you've never been on a jury, Dan O. When defendants cannot even answer simple questions like that it makes it difficult to believe them when answering important questions such as whether they murdered their roommate.

It scares me that people who think they can tell if someone is guilty by how they answer simple questions are allowed on juries.

 

[Dan O.]

And I have made statements to the police before and the questions were not written down. Only what I had to say was written down. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue how things work.

Did you bother to read the link I posted on the subject? Here is the untranslated page in Italian.
(of course, that URL translates to "police and democracy" so for Italy that would make it a parity site.)

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda never changed her story. Why do you persist with this lie?

What do you mean she never changed her story? The bit about Patrick raping and murdering Meredith was her story from day then one was it? And she didn't change it once agin later then? Oh.

You should learn to search for balanced information and not rely on a single source. If someone were for instance to treat the PFM site as the gospel truth on this matter they would have a very skewed perspective.

If you actually read the PMF site, you'd see it links to literally thousands of different sources on the case. It also contains original sources. It is the only site for example, that contains full English translations of Raffaele's and Rudy's diaries and contains a full translated version of the trasncript of Amanda's trial testimony. And that's just for starters. Perhaps you should actually start reading some case data Dan O. Not that many posts ago it was revealed how little you had actually read (hadn't read the diaries, hadn't read the court testimony, had no idea of the timeline, had no idea of Italian law, hadn't read God knows what, to the point of being shocking. Yet, you sit there and opine with absolute certainty, telling everyone else they are wrong.

In this country the police keep logs of the interrogation sessions so it isn't that difficult to come up with the correct answer.

As did the police in this case.

How was Amanda to know that the Italian justice system already drank the Kool-aid and would misinterpret everything she had to say.

'Misinterpret'? That's a new one.

What stat of mind are you in to interpret that as anything other than Amanda didn't know if her lamp was in her room that day or if Meredith had a similar lamp? Did Amanda have reason to use her lamp when she returned to the cottage?

It is certainly something that is very strange indeed that she didn't notice missing.

Unless you start with a prejudiced position that Amanda put that lamp in Meredith's room, there is no evidence and plenty of contradictory testimony that Amanda was not in Meredith's room and therefor would not have seen the lamp there. Your comment really indicates that you are prejudiced against Amanda. What flavor is the Kool-aid that they are serving over at PMF?

No Dan O, it's actually all the evidence that indicates she was at the cottage during and after the murder and the fact that nobody else would have had a reason and opportunity to put her lamp in Meredith's room in the position it was that leads to that judgement.

Did you bother to read the link I posted on the subject? Here is the untranslated page in Italian.

It's irrelevant. Otherwise perhaps you can explain how it is relevant and what point it is you're trying to make and how it somehow makes Amanda Knox innocent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It scares me that people who think they can tell if someone is guilty by how they answer simple questions are allowed on juries.

This is a straw man. People don't think Amanda is guilty simply because of how she answered on the stand alone, but because of that combined with the other mass of evidence against her of various types. You are obsessed with trying to isolate each piece of evidence from the rest. That's because it's the only way that it is possible for you to try and attack the case, which has always been your obvious agenda, ever since you started that other ridiculous and dishonest thread. It was quite clear to everyone from that moment that you were not interested in 'truth'. What dog do you have in this fight? It sounds like it's all rather personal for you. Others do not think as you, they weigh the evidence as a 'whole'. Stop projecting yourself onto others.

 

[Dan O.]

This is a straw man.

Did I miss a special of buzz words recently?

Others do not think as you, they weigh the evidence as a 'whole'.

A whole lot of nothing still comes up empty. If you can't support the foundations of your evidence, the whole picture doesn't hold up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did I miss a special of buzz words recently?




A whole lot of nothing still comes up empty. If you can't support the foundations of your evidence, the whole picture doesn't hold up.

Now, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[stilicho]

Amanda never changed her story. Why do you persist with this lie?

Because it isn't a lie. Compare and contrast her 04 NOV 2007 email to her friends and family, her written "gift" on 06 NOV 2007, and her testimony in court in JUN of last year. That doesn't even include the parts of her statements to police that were ruled inadmissible.

If you look closely at that post you will see that I did put a quote on the piece that you quoted in your reply. This was a long post and a repeat of what was already said so I wasn't going to spend time adding fancy formatting.

Apology accepted.

Again, this is only your claim that have not supported. I've told you where to find the support if it exists. I'm not your errand boy.

"I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik..."

When AK says this in her own handwriting, what more do you need for support? She explains again, in court in JUN 2009, that this was done without coercion:

"They treated me as though I had now remembered everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in the tribunal to accuse someone."

I recommend you read the full text of those three statements (including the entirety of her court testimony). There is no ambiguity after reading them that AK changed her story over time and that she deliberately accused Mr Lumumba of murder at least once before she wrote the "memorial". This might seem to be perfectly reasonable to you but I doubt anyone else sane would agree with you.

What stat of mind are you in to interpret that as anything other than Amanda didn't know if her lamp was in her room that day or if Meredith had a similar lamp? Did Amanda have reason to use her lamp when she returned to the cottage?

It's to contrast with AK's very specific recollections about other details, Dan O. She had very specific information about Filomena's room and very specific explanations about the blood in the bathroom. She even had firm memories of the bathroom not having towels in it. Yet she cannot answer a simple question about whether her lamp was really hers.

The only time her memory fails AK is whenever something comes up about Meredith's murder.

Unless you start with a prejudiced position that Amanda put that lamp in Meredith's room, there is no evidence and plenty of contradictory testimony that Amanda was not in Meredith's room and therefor would not have seen the lamp there. Your comment really indicates that you are prejudiced against Amanda.

That's patently absurd, Dan O. Most of the participants on this thread had been fully convinced by the Seattle media that AK was innocent, that the charges were trumped up, and that the Perugia authorities had no evidence. It was only after she was convicted that this thread was begun and some of us started looking into the lengthy and detailed process leading to her conviction.

 

[Alt+F4]

Most of the participants on this thread had been fully convinced by the Seattle media that AK was innocent, that the charges were trumped up, and that the Perugia authorities had no evidence. It was only after she was convicted that this thread was begun and some of us started looking into the lengthy and detailed process leading to her conviction.

For me at least, belief in her innocence was not due to the Seattle PR machine, but rather to the prosecution's poor motive - "sex game gone wrong". I even read an article in the British media comparing Amanda Knox to Adolf Eichmann!

And while I do think all three are guilty I still think the prosecution got parts of it wrong. This is what I think happened.

AK and RS arrive at the cottage with the knife. There is no way to tell what their reason was for bringing it, maybe they were going to make a big salad. RG has already attacked MK, stabbed her a few times with the other knife and choked her into unconsciousness. AK and RS are probably flying high on a lot more than weed. When MK regains consciousness and starts screaming RG convinces these two morons to help him kill her, probably saying the police will suspect them anyway since they were walking around Perugia with a giant knife.

After the murder RG splits, AK and RS come down off their high, panic, try to clean up then set up the fake break in. Since they don't think they will be suspected they don't bother to get their stories straight.

This makes a lot more sense than sex game/Satanic/psychopath crazy girl.

 

[Fiona]

AK and RS arrive at the cottage with the knife. There is no way to tell what their reason was for bringing it, maybe they were going to make a big salad. RG has already attacked MK, stabbed her a few times with the other knife and choked her into unconsciousness. AK and RS are probably flying high on a lot more than weed. When MK regains consciousness and starts screaming RG convinces these two morons to help him kill her, probably saying the police will suspect them anyway since they were walking around Perugia with a giant knife.

After the murder RG splits, AK and RS come down off their high, panic, try to clean up then set up the fake break in. Since they don't think they will be suspected they don't bother to get their stories straight.

This makes a lot more sense than sex game/Satanic/psychopath crazy girl.

Interesting speculation.

All through this thread there has been a recurrent theme: we are just not happy with uncertainty and we are all really apt to impose a narrative. That is a very strong human characteristic and I think we cannot avoid it really. But I say again: murder often does not make sense. We can wish for understanding but much of the time we do not get it. Prosecutors are forced to make some story because they are human too; and because they know we demand it. But I think it is better to acknowledge there is much we do not know and probably will never know

You feel your account makes more sense than the one the prosecution did not present in this trial: for me neither of them make any sense at all and to that extent they are equal.

I can accept that Guede might have got there first: but I cannot understand why you find it plausible that he had attacked Kercher. There is nothing in his background or history to suggest that he would do that. Your problem is lack of motive from AK and RS. What is Guede's motive? For me the problem is identical and I am afraid the willingness to see this as plausible has no firmer foundation. Can you give a more complete account of what you think he did and why? Perhaps it will help me to see why you think that is more likely.

Kercher got home about 9:15. She must have arrived before him because how did he get in if she didn't. Did she invite him in? Did the door not latch and he just happened to find it open? And finding it open he did not make the natural assumption that someone was inside? Or he did and entered anyway? What for? To use the toilet, perhaps.

"Hello Meredith. Sorry to trouble you but I am caught short. Can I use your toilet?"

"Sure, Rudy. On you go"

Rudy uses toilet: but he does not flush. Comes out.

Now what? I cannot get from there to serious sexual and physical assault.

Or Rudy just goes in and does not check if there is anyone there. Uses the toilet. Kercher hears him, maybe? Challenges him so he goes out and does not flush. She is alarmed and angry? And what? I can't get from there to serious sexual and physical assault either.

There is no evidence that AK and RS were high on more than weed: AK expected to work that night and did not learn she had the night off till 8:30. Do you think they had hard drugs waiting for use and took them after that time? Perhaps they did. RS seems to have used more than cannabis when he was younger so it is not impossible. But where and when did the take it? There is evidence from RS and from her cell phone that AK was out when the texts with Lumumba were exchanged. There was a delay in her answer to his. Maybe she got his text and immediately went out to score? Could be. Would she then take it back to RS's home? If so why did they go out after taking whatever it was. Why go to AK's home (with a big knife) when they had no certainty the house would not be occupied? Why not stay at RS's? People who are high usually stay put: or they want to dance or commune with nature or whatever. But they don't usually go from a private, secure environment to a less secure one, do they? Maybe AK had music at home they wanted to listen to or food they wanted to eat. Anything is possible. It just seems a bit odd to me.

Then they get to the house and find that Guede has attacked Kercher and she is unconscious, on your scenario. How do you envisage the exchange when he "convinces these two morons to help him kill her". My mind goes completely blank at that point. No matter how high; no matter how moronic; I just cannot see that part at all. Just how persuasive is Guede? Just how does he manage to convince them that they will be suspected anyway? They have a knife? well they do but RS always had a knife. Why would this be a believable threat? How would Guede know they had a knife anyway? I doubt they walked through the streets with it in full view. Maybe they did, but is it not more likely it was in a bag?

So now Guede legs it. They come down, panic, do the clean up and fake the break in: but all the while they are doing this it does not occur to them they will be suspected? I can't see that either. Why do they move the victim's body? why do they cut off the bra? To make it more like a sexual attack? On your scenario it already was that. Why do they need to beef it up? Would you willingly do those things? To what purpose?

What about the witnesses who saw them there? Perhaps you reject them as unreliable? Ok. It is a stretch but ok.

Then they presumably go to to RS's? I can quite understand that they would have difficulty sleeping but why do they switch their phones on at about 5:30 am?

Fact is we can make up all sorts of things to account for the facts we do have, and none of them are satisfying.

 

[Dan O.]

Please explain this then. From the "facts" that we know: On the evening of November 1, 2007 Amanda was scheduled to work at the bar. At 8:18 she received a text message that she was not needed at the bar and replied to Patrick "See you later" at 8:35 at which point she turned off her cell phone.

Do the proponents of Amanda's guilt believe that in less than 17 minutes Amanda hatched the plan that she would go back to the cottage to murder Meredith even though she knew that Meredith was out and didn't know when she would return?

But Raffaele is not in on this plan because his phone is still on at 8:42 when he gets a call from his dad and talks to him for almost 4 minutes.

And how did they find Rudy? They couldn't call him. Did they just happen to see him on the way and say "Hey, we're going to murder Meredith, do you want to come along?".


It just doesn't make any sense and none of the details fit but you put your heads in the stratosphere and say you are looking at the whole picture. The courts found her guilty and who are you to question the superiority of the courts.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do the proponents of Amanda's guilt believe that in less than 17 minutes Amanda hatched the plan that she would go back to the cottage to murder Meredith even though she knew that Meredith was out and didn't know when she would return?

I don't believe anyone has suggested that this murder involved much premeditation. I don't any of the three planned to murder Meredith, but they did.

 

[Alt+F4]

All through this thread there has been a recurrent theme: we are just not happy with uncertainty and we are all really apt to impose a narrative. That is a very strong human characteristic and I think we cannot avoid it really. But I say again: murder often does not make sense.

Very true, murder often does not make sense but I can see zero evidence that the motive for this murder was a "sex game gone wrong".

I can accept that Guede might have got there first: but I cannot understand why you find it plausible that he had attacked Kercher. There is nothing in his background or history to suggest that he would do that. Your problem is lack of motive from AK and RS. What is Guede's motive?

MK had a boyfriend, there is no reason to believe she would willingly be with RG sexually. He attacked her because she said no. A man attacking a woman for not giving in sexually makes far more sense than a woman attacking another woman in a "sex game gone bad".

Kercher got home about 9:15. She must have arrived before him because how did he get in if she didn't. Did she invite him in?

There would be no reason for her to not invite him in if he said he had to use the toilet. She had seen him hanging out with the people downstairs. From her point of veiw there was no reason to be fearful of him.

Now what? I cannot get from there to serious sexual and physical assault.

He uses the toilet, they start to talk. He comes on too strong, she asks him to leave. It esculates from there.

There is no evidence that AK and RS were high on more than weed: AK expected to work that night and did not learn she had the night off till 8:30. Do you think they had hard drugs waiting for use and took them after that time?

I do. I believe the time of the time of death was between midnight and 2am? Plenty of time to get high and committ the murder.

Why go to AK's home (with a big knife) when they had no certainty the house would not be occupied?

I don't think they went to AK's home with the knife with the intention of hurting anyone. So many of the things they did that eveing and the next morning make so little sense, I can't see any other reasoning behind it except drugs. The fake break in, the bra, moving the body - all these things seem to be done by people who had absolutely no idea what they were doing.

 

[Fiona]

But Raffaele is not in on this plan because his phone is still on at 8:42 when he gets a call from his dad and talks to him for almost 4 minutes.

I was not aware of that. I understood that call went straight to voice mail. Is that not correct ?

 

[bennet]

Hi, I am following the discussions about this case for quite some time now. I read many posts on this thread, but not all of them, just too many. This is my first post here.
I am interested in your opinion on the bathmat evidence and how it is presented on the Friends of Amanda Homepage.

On the FOA-page they explain the view of Amanda´s defense on some evidence:
The bathmat footprint:
"It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat. "
This taken from the FOA-Page (I am not allowed to post links).
To explain that the footprint belongs to Rudy Guede and not to RS they put a footprint of RS next to the bloody footprint on the bathmat, next to the footprint of Guede. And when you move the mouse on the bathmat footprint it is crossfaded with Guede´s footprint and one gets the impression that in fact Guedes footprint is a better match.

What irritates me is the fact that the print of RS and the one of Guede are printed in the same size. But RS shoe size is I think 42, while Guede´s is a lot bigger (46 or 47, I think). To whom does the footprint belong?. If it belongs to RS, I think this is very strong evidence that RS and AK are involved.
bennet