Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Why is she walking barefoot on the floor to return the mat that she had just used to get to her room in order to prevent her walking barefoot on the floor? That makes no sense!

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

I will save a HUGE amount of time by simply stating that not even the defence and their experts are trying to claim all the prints are Amanda's. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them how they're all wrong and that you jolly well know better!

 

[Fulcanelli]

" 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

And if you read her email home, in that version she notices all the blood BEFORE getting in the shower. Just another Amanda contradiction.

 

[christianahannah]

Why is she walking barefoot on the floor to return the mat that she had just used to get to her room in order to prevent her walking barefoot on the floor? That makes no sense!

Amanda, per her testimony, used the mat on the way to her bedroom because she did not have a towel to dry herself off in the bathroom, i.e. she was dripping wet. Tile is very slippery when wet so that is the need for the mat to the bedroom. Once Amanda is dry (using the towel in the bedroom) she would no longer need the mat (providing she didn't drip water off the mat and onto the corridor tile).

Just speculation for I don't know for sure if that is what happened, however, I have done somewhat the same finding myself without a towel after showering.

 

[RoseMontague]

katy_did,
Are all of these right foot prints, or have some of them been inverted¿¿¿

I can see just all right foot prints if your left foot was on the mat and you were using your right foot to ski along the floor. It does not make sense to me that she would do that, however↔

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda, per her testimony, used the mat on the way to her bedroom because she did not have a towel to dry herself off in the bathroom, i.e. she was dripping wet. Tile is very slippery when wet so that is the need for the mat to the bedroom. Once Amanda is dry (using the towel in the bedroom) she would no longer need the mat (providing she didn't drip water off the mat and onto the corridor tile).

Just speculation for I don't know for sure if that is what happened, however, I have done somewhat the same finding myself without a towel after showering.

In which case, her feet would have been dry and not left luminol prints in a water/blood residue.

 

[Fulcanelli]

katy_did,
Are all of these right foot prints, or have some of them been inverted¿¿¿

I can see just all right foot prints if your left foot was on the mat and you were using your right foot to ski along the floor. It does not make sense to me that she would do that, however↔

All of the prints were of right feet (except for Rudy's trainer prints).

 

[christianahannah]

And if you read her email home, in that version she notices all the blood BEFORE getting in the shower. Just another Amanda contradiction.

Is the content of the November 4 email on Perugia-Shock correct (I know that sometimes the translation from Italian to English and opposite can be confusing on the blog)? If this is the correct email Amanda writes she notices the blood in the bathroom after she steps out of the shower.

i undressed in my room and took a quick shower in one of the two
bathrooms in my house, the one that is right next to meredith and my
bedrooms (situated right next to one another). it was after i stepped
out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the
bathroom. it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were
drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have
come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago,
but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat
were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the
blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood
smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange,
because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood
int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having
menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry
about. i left the bathroom and got dressed in my room.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/from-amanda-knox.html

 

[christianahannah]

In which case, her feet would have been dry and not left luminol prints in a water/blood residue.

Could she have left prints if her feet were dry but the tile damp from the wet mat (I am the first to admit that I do not completely understand the science of luminol with regards to blood and prints)?

 

[Agatha]

But in her testimony, she notices it before her shower.

Mignini; When did you notice the blood?

Knox; I saw the blood when I went into the bathroom.

Interpreter; In the washbasin when she took her earrings out. After the shower she realised she didn’t have a towel and she used the bathmat.

Mignini; So you saw the blood before you had a shower?

Intepreter; Yes, in the wash basin yes.

Mignini; You found the door open, blood in the bathroom and despite all this you had a shower?

 

[christianahannah]

But in her testimony, she notices it before her shower.

Mignini; When did you notice the blood?

Knox; I saw the blood when I went into the bathroom.

Interpreter; In the washbasin when she took her earrings out. After the shower she realised she didn’t have a towel and she used the bathmat.

Mignini; So you saw the blood before you had a shower?

Intepreter; Yes, in the wash basin yes.

Mignini; You found the door open, blood in the bathroom and despite all this you had a shower?

Was this testimony in December 2008? Or June 2009? Or does Amanda say this same testimony (referenced above) at both dates as to when she noticed the blood?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could she have left prints if her feet were dry but the tile damp from the wet mat (I am the first to admit that I do not completely understand the science of luminol with regards to blood and prints)?

No, because they are complete prints...they are not from having trodden on the odd drop on the floor. So, it was the feet that were wet rather then the floor. Moreover, why would she have walked barefoot on a wet floor to take back the bath mat, when the whole purpose of her using the mat in the first place was to 'not' walk on a wet floor or on a floor with wet feet? So, it works on neither a practical level nor a logical one.

 

[Fine]

But in her testimony, she notices it before her shower.

Mignini; When did you notice the blood?

Knox; I saw the blood when I went into the bathroom.

Interpreter; In the washbasin when she took her earrings out. After the shower she realised she didn’t have a towel and she used the bathmat.

Mignini; So you saw the blood before you had a shower?

Intepreter; Yes, in the wash basin yes.
Mignini; You found the door open, blood in the bathroom and despite all this you had a shower?

________________

Well, there is a contradiction between her email and her testimony, as to when she first noticed blood. But in her testimony she doesn't say she saw the bathmat blood until she exited the shower, which is consistent with her email.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But in her testimony, she notices it before her shower.

Mignini; When did you notice the blood?

Knox; I saw the blood when I went into the bathroom.

Interpreter; In the washbasin when she took her earrings out. After the shower she realised she didn’t have a towel and she used the bathmat.

Mignini; So you saw the blood before you had a shower?

Intepreter; Yes, in the wash basin yes.

Mignini; You found the door open, blood in the bathroom and despite all this you had a shower?

I knew she had said she saw the blood first somewhere...I thought it was the email, my mistake, I got it the wrong way around...it was saw the blood afterwards in the email and saw the blood before in her testimony. Thanks Agatha.

 

[Fulcanelli]

________________

Well, there is a contradiction between her email and her testimony, as to when she first noticed blood. But in her testimony she doesn't say she saw the bathmat blood until she exited the shower, which is consistent with her email.

So..she exited the shower...saw all the blood on the mat and then promptly put her feet on it and used it to dry her feet and then waddle off on it? Nobody would do that.

Sheesh, does that girl lie.

 

[katy_did]

I will save a HUGE amount of time by simply stating that not even the defence and their experts are trying to claim all the prints are Amanda's. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them how they're all wrong and that you jolly well know better!

Or I suppose I could just write to Raffaele's grandmother and ask her to look into it (or whichever sundry female relative it was that corrected the last glaring error from Rinaldi). By the way, I take it that you're not intending to defend your claim that the "prints assigned to Raffaele and Amanda are completely different to each other, in size, shape and characteristics"? Fair enough.

As to the defence not trying to argue the prints were all Amanda's, well, of course they didn't. It would have been a highly risky strategy (at least at the time). On the one hand they would have to do half the prosecution's work for them, and claim all the prints were Amanda's. Then they would have had to hope like hell the jury accepted their innocent explanation for how they were made, and rejected the prosecution's claim that these were bloody footprints that were 'cleaned up'. The onus was on the prosecution to prove those things (the identity of the prints, the material they were made in, and that they were part of a clean-up), not on the defence to disprove them; hence, they didn't take the risk of arguing the prints were all Amanda's.

The situation may be different now, though, since Massei rejected the prosecution's theory that the prints were cleaned up. If the prints were made in a 'residue' of blood and water, there is no reason they can't have been made by Amanda stepping on the bathmat that morning. I'm curious as to whether the defence will change their approach to the luminol prints now. Massei certainly seems to be giving them every encouragement to do so.

 

[katy_did]

In which case, her feet would have been dry and not left luminol prints in a water/blood residue.

Her feet would have been dry on her way back to the bathroom, not on the way to her room.

 

[christianahannah]

No, because they are complete prints...they are not from having trodden on the odd drop on the floor. So, it was the feet that were wet rather then the floor. Moreover, why would she have walked barefoot on a wet floor to take back the bath mat, when the whole purpose of her using the mat in the first place was to 'not' walk on a wet floor or on a floor with wet feet? So, it works on neither a practical level nor a logical one.

The corridor tile could have been slightly damp from the wet bath mat sliding against the tile.

It is not the dampness of the tile which causes concern mostly, it is the pooling of water on the tile which does.

 

[43degreesNorth]

The situation may be different now, though, since Massei rejected the prosecution's theory that the prints were cleaned up. If the prints were made in a 'residue' of blood and water, there is no reason they can't have been made by Amanda stepping on the bathmat that morning. I'm curious as to whether the defence will change their approach to the luminol prints now. Massei certainly seems to be giving them every encouragement to do so.

If the prints were from residue blood & water, would the residue have to be atleast the side of her foot inorder to make footprints that clear? That is a pretty large pool of wateryblood mix, hard to miss?

 

[katy_did]

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.

Interestingly i think it was prints 2 and 4 that Rinaldi identified as Amanda's, while print 3 was attributed to Raffaele! (print 5 wasn't identified as anybody's).