Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

Take the blood stain in Filomena's room or the bloody print on the mat or blood stains in the bathroom or luminol footprints...none of those contained the DNA of any unknowns. Neither did Meredith's body or her room.

The blood stains in the bathroom did, I think (in the sink and on the box of cotton buds). IIRC they contained low level peaks which indicated the presence of other people's DNA.

 

[katy_did]

In answer to your other question...Amanda didn't 'dry' her feet on the mat, according to her she 'boogied' on it as a mode of transport to get to her room...in short, according to her she didn't walk on the floor with her bare feet. Moreover, walking on the floor from the shower does not explain Raffaele's luminol footprint. But, this all makes no sense to me at all anyway, since who would boogie barefoot on a mat covered with someone else's blood? I don't believe the bathmat boogie story for a moment.

She said she used the bathmat to 'sort of hop' back to her room, I believe. Wouldn't that make it even more likely she would have picked up traces of diluted blood/water on her feet than if she'd simply dried her feet on it? It would also explain the discontinuous nature of the prints, their having been made at points where she stepped off the bathmat.

 

[katy_did]

***applauds quietly*****

Why thank you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, it doesn't really make sense, since they're supposed to have been there on hands and knees cleaning up a trail of bloody footprints leading to the bloody footprint on the bathmat. Even leaving aside the idea that Raffaele himself is supposed to have made the print, and therefore would presumably have been aware it was a footprint.

I think the idea that they needed to leave 'just the right amount of blood' has already been refuted by LondonJohn's earlier posts. Don't you think the break-in would already have been sufficient reason to call the police? Or, as LJ said, they could simply have trashed the front room, something which would have involved very little risk on their part. Why the need for a 'gradual' discovery anyway?

Who says they were on hands and Knees? You must also remember, the print we see on the mat in the photos has been enhanced and was taken with string lighting. That's not how it would have appeared to them. And as people here are quick to point out, even enhanced and strongly lit, it's only a partial print with the heel completely missing along with nearly all the toes. Even if they realised it was a faint partial footprint, it would have appeared too feint and partial to be assumed possible to realistically match to any particular individual.

It must also be pointed out. Massei concludes (although not in the quoted section) that they didn't realise the print on the mat was a footprint, since neither of them mention a footprint on the mat in any of their statements, emails, diaries or cross examination. Instead, they always refer to the blood on the mat as simply a 'stain' or 'blood'.

No, the requirement for blood in the bathroom has not been well refuted at all. What break-in? Amanda and Raffaele would certainly not of known. Without the blood in the bathroom to get Amanda 'concerned' what reason would she have had to check Meredith's door and find it locked, go back to Raffaele's apartment and phone Meredith and Filomena, get Raffaele and bring him back to the cottage and then enter Folomena's room to investigate it and 'discover' the 'burglary'? None. Amanda would simply have been expected to get dressed, go back to Raffaele's and spend the day there with him none the wiser that anything was amiss at the cottage. It would have been a case of 'What break-in?'

 

[Fulcanelli]

She said she used the bathmat to 'sort of hop' back to her room, I believe. Wouldn't that make it even more likely she would have picked up traces of diluted blood/water on her feet than if she'd simply dried her feet on it? It would also explain the discontinuous nature of the prints, their having been made at points where she stepped off the bathmat.

But in her scenario, she went to her room on the mat so she didn't have to walk barefoot on the floor...so according to her, she didn't walk barefoot on the floor. So then, if she didn't walk barefoot on the floor...where did her bare footprints come from? Clearly, the bath mat story is false.

And as I said, this doesn't address Raffaele's barefoot prints at all anyway. You can make up an elaborate acrobatic excuse to explain one item of evidence in isolation, but they all fall apart once one takes in the context and the whole.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The blood stains in the bathroom did, I think (in the sink and on the box of cotton buds). IIRC they contained low level peaks which indicated the presence of other people's DNA.

No, none contained profiles of unknown individuals. They contained only the profiles of Meredith or/and Amanda.

 

[katy_did]

Who says they were on hands and Knees? You must also remember, the print we see on the mat in the photos has been enhanced and was taken with string lighting. That's not how it would have appeared to them. And as people here are quick to point out, even enhanced and strongly lit, it's only a partial print with the heel completely missing along with nearly all the toes. Even if they realised it was a faint partial footprint, it would have appeared too feint and partial to be assumed possible to realistically match to any particular individual.

It must also be pointed out. Massei concludes (although not in the quoted section) that they didn't realise the print on the mat was a footprint, since neither of them mention a footprint on the mat in any of their statements, emails, diaries or cross examination. Instead, they always refer to the blood on the mat as simply a 'stain' or 'blood'.

Then Massei's reasoning is flawed, too. I'll say again: if they cleaned up a trail of bloody footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint (whether on hands and knees or not) there's no way they wouldn't have known that the mark on the bathmat was also a footprint, especially considering that Raffaele is supposed to have made it.

If they were involved in the murder, the only reasons for them to have left the footprint and the other blood stains in the bathroom are either that they didn't have time to clean them up (unlikely) or that they knew Rudy was the one to leave them. Leaving 'just the right amount of blood' isn't plausible.

No, the requirement for blood in the bathroom has not been well refuted at all. What break-in? Amanda and Raffaele would certainly not of known. Without the blood in the bathroom to get Amanda 'concerned' what reason would she have had to check Meredith's door and find it locked, go back to Raffaele's apartment and phone Meredith and Filomena, get Raffaele and bring him back to the cottage and then enter Folomena's room to investigate it and 'discover' the 'burglary'? None. Amanda would simply have been expected to get dressed, go back to Raffaele's and spend the day there with him none the wiser that anything was amiss at the cottage. It would have been a case of 'What break-in?'

Wouldn't the wide open front door have been a valid enough reason for Amanda to take a quick look round the cottage? Why couldn't Filomena's bedroom door have been wide open, making the break-in obvious to anyone who walked past it?

There's just no logical reason for the convoluted story about Amanda coming home, finding odd things, going back to get Raffaele and then discovering the break-in - not unless that was what actually happened. You can't fit it into any sort of strategic narrative which would benefit them. There was no need for a 'gradual' discovery of the break-in at all.

 

[katy_did]

No, none contained profiles of unknown individuals. They contained only the profiles of Meredith or/and Amanda.

I'm pretty sure the report says otherwise. But I shall go check.

 

[katy_did]

But in her scenario, she went to her room on the mat so she didn't have to walk barefoot on the floor...so according to her, she didn't walk barefoot on the floor. So then, if she didn't walk barefoot on the floor...where did her bare footprints come from? Clearly, the bath mat story is false.

She didn't take the bathmat into her room, but left it in the corridor. This fits the location of the prints, with the majority either outside Amanda's door (when she presumably stepped off the bathmat) or in her room.

I think Amanda's lawyer also hinted that they could have been made through the bathmat, though I'm not sure how plausible that is. It would, I suppose, explain why the prints in the corridor are distorted (in comparison to the one Rinaldi analyzed in her room, which was very clear).

And as I said, this doesn't address Raffaele's barefoot prints at all anyway. You can make up an elaborate acrobatic excuse to explain one item of evidence in isolation, but they all fall apart once one takes in the context and the whole.

I don't think any of the luminol prints are Raffaele's; they're most likely all Amanda's, given their location. Rinaldi had to do some acrobatic measuring of obviously distorted prints in order to attribute one to Raffaele. The reason he did so is because they would have been too easy to explain away if they had all been attributed to Amanda.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then Massei's reasoning is flawed, too. I'll say again: if they cleaned up a trail of bloody footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint (whether on hands and knees or not) there's no way they wouldn't have known that the mark on the bathmat was also a footprint, especially considering that Raffaele is supposed to have made it.

If they were involved in the murder, the only reasons for them to have left the footprint and the other blood stains in the bathroom are either that they didn't have time to clean them up (unlikely) or that they knew Rudy was the one to leave them. Leaving 'just the right amount of blood' isn't plausible.

You can insist that they knew it was a footprint (without evidence) until the cows come home. But it's meaningless unless you can also show that they would have recognised it as as being a 'viable' footprint, ie, one that could be matched to an individual. Unless they believed the print on the mat could be matched to them, they had no reason to dispose of it. Without photographic enhancement of the print taken in strong lighting, I can't see for a moment anyone dreaming that print could be matched to anyone. Moreover, disposing of the mat would also have been more difficult then washing the footprints off of the tile floor, not to mention a risk (they could be caught/seen disposing of it...not to mention the fact the other housemates and the police, would want to know why the hell a burglar would leave all Filomena's, Laura's and Amanda's valuables behind...yet steal their bath mat...it would have looked pretty damn suspicious).

Wouldn't the wide open front door have been a valid enough reason for Amanda to take a quick look round the cottage? Why couldn't Filomena's bedroom door have been wide open, making the break-in obvious to anyone who walked past it?

No. For as you well know (since it was a favourite topic of discussion of yours here some time back) it was normal for the door to be open, because of the fault with the latch. Amanda knew this and so did the other housemates. Therefore, it wasn't enough. Also, it would ruin everything, since Amanda would be expected (of that was her preferred mechanism for becoming alarmed) to discover the burglary right away and so call in the cavalry instantly. Then she couldn't have had her 'shower' and if she didn't have her shower, how could she perform the cleaning and explain the water from it should any housemate or visitor arrive early by claiming she had a shower? She also needed to be in that bathroom to clean it so needed a reason to be in there, should anyone come home...so, she needed the shower.

There was every reason for a gradual discovery. Amanda needed time to 'clean' and to complete the staging. She needed something to explain that 'time'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

She didn't take the bathmat into her room, but left it in the corridor. This fits the location of the prints, with the majority either outside Amanda's door (when she presumably stepped off the bathmat) or in her room.

I think Amanda's lawyer also hinted that they could have been made through the bathmat, though I'm not sure how plausible that is. It would, I suppose, explain why the prints in the corridor are distorted (in comparison to the one Rinaldi analyzed in her room, which was very clear).


I don't think any of the luminol prints are Raffaele's; they're most likely all Amanda's, given their location. Rinaldi had to do some acrobatic measuring of obviously distorted prints in order to attribute one to Raffaele. The reason he did so is because they would have been too easy to explain away if they had all been attributed to Amanda.

Where did Amanda say she left the mat in the corridor?

If she got off the mat and stepped straight into her room, how then are her footprints in the corridor?

Why is Amanda boogying around on a mat covered with someone else's blood? Don't you that that's risible? Don't you think the bath mat boogie story, even on a mat 'without' blood is risible?

Why if she didn't want to walk on the bare tiles is she suddenly happy to do so in her room?

Amanda's prints in the corridor are not distorted, they're clear and certainly no less clear then the ones in her room.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think any of the luminol prints are Raffaele's; they're most likely all Amanda's, given their location. Rinaldi had to do some acrobatic measuring of obviously distorted prints in order to attribute one to Raffaele. The reason he did so is because they would have been too easy to explain away if they had all been attributed to Amanda.

No. The prints assigned to Raffaele and Amanda are completely different to each other, in size, shape and characteristics. They are not all Amanda's. Which is good news for you really, since then you'd have to explain why Amanda's in on the bath mat in Meredith's blood (and that cannot be explained by 'having a shower').

 

[katy_did]

You can insist that they knew it was a footprint (without evidence) until the cows come home. But it's meaningless unless you can also show that they would have recognised it as as being a 'viable' footprint, ie, one that could be matched to an individual. Unless they believed the print on the mat could be matched to them, they had no reason to dispose of it. Without photographic enhancement of the print taken in strong lighting, I can't see for a moment anyone dreaming that print could be matched to anyone. Moreover, disposing of the mat would also have been more difficult then washing the footprints off of the tile floor, not to mention a risk (they could be caught/seen disposing of it...not to mention the fact the other housemates and the police, would want to know why the hell a burglar would leave all Filomena's, Laura's and Amanda's valuables behind...yet steal their bath mat...it would have looked pretty damn suspicious).

I've provided logical reasons as to why, if they cleaned the trail of prints leading up to it, they couldn't fail to recognize it as a print. You haven't provided evidence as to their not recognizing it as a footprint, except for the fact it wasn't cleaned up, which in turn is evidence they didn't recognize it... Very circular logic.

They didn't need to dispose of the mat, they could just have run it under the tap, used a bit of soap if necessary. Would've probably come out pretty easily.

No. For as you well know (since it was a favourite topic of discussion of yours here some time back) it was normal for the door to be open, because of the fault with the latch. Amanda knew this and so did the other housemates. Therefore, it wasn't enough. Also, it would ruin everything, since Amanda would be expected (of that was her preferred mechanism for becoming alarmed) to discover the burglary right away and so call in the cavalry instantly. Then she couldn't have had her 'shower' and if she didn't have her shower, how could she perform the cleaning and explain the water from it should any housemate or visitor arrive early by claiming she had a shower? She also needed to be in that bathroom to clean it so needed a reason to be in there, should anyone come home...so, she needed the shower.

There was every reason for a gradual discovery. Amanda needed time to 'clean' and to complete the staging. She needed something to explain that 'time'.

Erm, what? The whole reason Amanda was alarmed by it is that it *wasn't* normal for the door to be open, since the girls always locked it behind them (you know, with a key).

What is it you think Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up that needed to be explained by Amanda taking a shower? Massei only mentions bloody footprints leading to the bathmat, which would have taken no time to dry, and for which no trace was left. And even supposing she did feel the need to say she took a shower, why not just say she was puzzled that no one had come back into the house while she was taking it (given the open front door) and decided to take a quick look round? An easy explanation.

All this talk of a supposedly very planned gradual discovery of the break-in is incredibly convoluted, and seems like an implausible attempt to connect every scrap of evidence into some kind of coherent narrative which is just...very unlikely. They could just have said they dropped by to pick up some things on the way to Gubbio for their daytrip and discovered the break-in. There was simply no need for anything else.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Perhaps you can clear something up for me. If that's the way the prints were made, how can it be ruled out that Amanda made them when taking her shower that morning and drying her feet on the bathmat (on which, of course, was a diluted mixture of blood and water) - something she claimed she did long before the luminol prints were discovered?.

Thats exactly what I was thinking - She stepped onto the mat getting out of the shower, she used the mat to hop on to get to her room, she left the footprints in the hall from having first stepped onto the mat and when she returned the mat, she put it back down the opposite way it was before.

 

[katy_did]

No. The prints assigned to Raffaele and Amanda are completely different to each other, in size, shape and characteristics. They are not all Amanda's. Which is good news for you really, since then you'd have to explain why Amanda's in on the bath mat in Meredith's blood (and that cannot be explained by 'having a shower').

I hope this image isn't too big (let me know if so, and I'll reduce the size). These are the luminol prints and Amanda's police print all to the same scale (thanks once again to Kermit for the original Powerpoints; I used the rulers on the slides to align each print to the same scale). Note that the print attributed to Amanda - the second one, found in her room - is much clearer than the other prints. The third, fourth and fifth prints are obviously blurred and distorted. Garafano in 'Darkness Descending' suggests this is due to misapplication of the luminol, which enlarged the prints; it might also, as I said earlier, be due to those prints having been made through the bathmat.

Do these prints look like they were made by different people? They all look mighty similar to me. I wonder whether the jury were ever presented with the luminol prints in this form, because it certainly gave me a different perspective as to their similarities in terms of size/shape.

 

[katy_did]

Also, anyone know which of these prints was attributed to Raffaele? I thought it was print 5 - which to me looks like two of Amanda's prints, given the double marks for the heel and big toe - but looking at Rinaldi's report which Charlie linked to earlier, it seems it was print 3. Except that that print is very similar to print 2, which was attributed to Amanda, so now I'm confused...

 

[Fine]

Does anyone know when Amanda's bathmat boogie story first emerged?
It doesn't appear in her November 4, 2007 email to friends.

And anyone have any idea: just what was the innocent purpose of Amanda performing the bathmat boogie? I'd always assumed that it was to prevent her from having to walk to her room in wet feet. But not so. In the November 4 email she says that she had dried her feet on the bathmat while still in the bathroom. Why dry her feet BEFORE the boogie?

///

 

[RoseMontague]

I hope this image isn't too big (let me know if so, and I'll reduce the size). These are the luminol prints and Amanda's police print all to the same scale (thanks once again to Kermit for the original Powerpoints; I used the rulers on the slides to align each print to the same scale). Note that the print attributed to Amanda - the second one, found in her room - is much clearer than the other prints. The third, fourth and fifth prints are obviously blurred and distorted. Garafano in 'Darkness Descending' suggests this is due to misapplication of the luminol, which enlarged the prints; it might also, as I said earlier, be due to those prints having been made through the bathmat.

Do these prints look like they were made by different people? They all look mighty similar to me. I wonder whether the jury were ever presented with the luminol prints in this form, because it certainly gave me a different perspective as to their similarities in terms of size/shape.

[qimg]http://i46.tinypic.com/261k8zs.jpg[/qimg]

The 1st, 3rd, and 5th appear to me to be very similar. The 2nd one it looks like the 2nd toe is shorter than in the first picture and possibly the same for number 4 (going from left to right).

The 2nd and 4th also look like the big toe points to the right at more of an angle than the other 3.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Does anyone know when Amanda's bathmat boogie story first emerged?
It doesn't appear in her November 4, 2007 email to friends.

And anyone have any idea: just what was the innocent purpose of Amanda performing the bathmat boogie? I'd always assumed that it was to prevent her from having to walk to her room in wet feet. But not so. In the November 4 email she says that she had dried her feet on the bathmat while still in the bathroom. Why dry her feet BEFORE the boogie?

///

" Then when I got out of the shower, I saw
that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my
room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And
I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that
didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to
my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back
to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back
where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back,
brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes, I took
-- no! "


Thats a quote from Amanda during her trial testimony

 

[Fulcanelli]

Erm, what? The whole reason Amanda was alarmed by it is that it *wasn't* normal for the door to be open, since the girls always locked it behind them (you know, with a key).

What is it you think Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up that needed to be explained by Amanda taking a shower? Massei only mentions bloody footprints leading to the bathmat, which would have taken no time to dry, and for which no trace was left. And even supposing she did feel the need to say she took a shower, why not just say she was puzzled that no one had come back into the house while she was taking it (given the open front door) and decided to take a quick look round? An easy explanation.

All this talk of a supposedly very planned gradual discovery of the break-in is incredibly convoluted, and seems like an implausible attempt to connect every scrap of evidence into some kind of coherent narrative which is just...very unlikely. They could just have said they dropped by to pick up some things on the way to Gubbio for their daytrip and discovered the break-in. There was simply no need for anything else.

Amanda referred to it as a common complaint with the door. She already stated that she thought one of the housemates was maybe taking out the rubbish, had visited the boys down stairs, or had gone out somewhere and forgotten to do the thing with the key. And that is the LOGICAL conclusion to come too! if the door had nit had a broken latch, THEN it might be logical to become alarmed.


The explanation you suggest she could have offered is a bit 'lame'...a bit weak 'Oh, I just happened to look around and then I saw'. She didn't want a pat excuse, she wanted a 'story'...stories are more convincing. Moreover, she still needed to clean...if someone had discovered her she wouldn't be able to give the 'I was concerned because I found the door open' explanation, because the obvious reply would have been...'Well why are you messing around in the bathroom and why haven't you done anything about it yet'?

As for Massei, he on mentions the lack of footprints going up to the mat and the stain on the door in THAT section, a section that was intended to cover the phones, not cleaning. Don't worry, he mentions more in other places!