Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Yesterday it was the Straw Man, today it is begging the question (well, actually, everyday it's begging the question):

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

The concept applies to Fulcanelli's questions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

By the way, I would thank you not to insert your answers within a quote of my post, it puts words in my mouth...know what I mean?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Does anyone know what happened to Shuttlt?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This whole bathmat issue I find quite interesting, but more for how the Amanda-is-guilty brigade are behaving than for its evidentiary value (which is near zero).

It's exactly like the 9/11 deniers staring at Youtube videos until they see something they can't immediately understand, and then running to post about this new "evidence" they have unearthed, and being congratulated by their fellow deniers on their sterling detective work.

I've shuffled from the bathroom to my bedroom many times using a towel or bathmat when I've forgotten my towel, to avoid leaving wet footprints on the floor and also to avoid dripping everywhere. Once I've grabbed a towel I could easily imagine drying myself a bit to minimise drips and then just walking back to the bathroom, or equally easily imagine myself shuffling back to the bathroom to dry myself. Nothing about either series of events strikes me as being the least bit strange or unusual.

However the Amanda-is-guilty crowd are not only flatly unable to imagine any such scenario ever occurring (despite it being very obvious and everyday), but they go further and take this to be evidence she is a murderer!

Evidence:

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!

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.

My bolding.

___________

What I find odd is that her motivation for doing the bathmat boogie in the first place is, apparently, to keep from dripping ---from hair and body--- onto the floor of the bathroom, the hallway, and then her bedroom. Okay, so she has boogied to her bedroom, found her towel, and has dried off. But then she turns around and does the same awkward boogie back to the bathroom? But the original motive for the boogie has vanished. And she can't be reluctant to walk barefoot, since this whole procedure began in her bedroom where she disrobed and walked barefoot to the bathroom.

I'm sure it's impossible to see from the inside, but from the outside this looks exactly like confirmation bias running amok. Once these people have invested themselves in the position that Amanda was guilty absolutely everything becomes evidence she was guilty to them, regardless of whether it has any real evidentiary value at all. In fact to them it's so obviously good evidence that they have to mock the very idea that it could not be evidence of her guilt - exactly like the giggling 9/11 deniers and moon hoaxers.

Notice that it's not enough for them that one or two pieces of evidence implicate or convict Knox and Raffaele. From a rational perspective that's all you need and maybe all you expect. To them everything is evidence of Knox's and Raffaele's guilt. The way she hops on a bathmat is proof of her guilt, the way she pauses in the cleaning products aisle is proof of her guilt, the way she made a ludicrously false confession that could not possibly have been true while under interrogation is proof of her guilt (as opposed to proof she was browbeaten into a false confession), and so on and on.

Similarly, we've just seen clear evidence that the footprints which were supposed to be slam-dunk evidence of Raffaele's guilt were in fact ambiguous, to put it mildly. Confronted with the evidence of his own eyes, Fulcanelli decides to put more faith in the court's judgement, despite the fact that the specific issue was never contested in court. (The argument, immediately echoed, that a 3mm size difference in the suspect's feet meant several shoe sizes difference was particularly humorous).

This isn't rational, skeptical analysis in action. Whether or not Knox and Solecito are guilty, it's simply a fact that the Amanda-is-guilty posters here are doing it wrong.

While we're on the topic of argumentative errors:

But there is when you work from the total assumption that the lab got everything right when it came to Rudy and everything wrong when it came to Amanda and Raffaele.

Nobody has ever said anything resembling this. In fact this specific claim has been denied repeatedly. As straw men go this can't be excused as a simple misreading. Stilicho has echoed this same talking point as well.

Back to Fulcanelli's response to my post now:

The whole line that 'there is no evidence and there is no motive' is an FOA talking point and the only people who believe it are FOA.

This is both false and an ad hominem attack by association, hence totally irrelevant. I am not a member of any pro-Amanda group nor have I more than glanced at the FOA site, so clearly the point that the evidence placing Amanda and Raffaele at the murder scene is very weak is not sole property of FOA members, nor is the observation that the prosecution's theory is ludicrous their sole property.

However it doesn't matter, because whether or not it's an "FOA talking point" is irrelevant to whether it's true or false. Fulcanelli can't engage with the actual evidence or arguments on these points so he finds a way to dismiss the whole issue without discussing it.

What do you mean 'people like Rudy'...you mean BLACK people?

Here is yet another straw man with a bonus accusation of racism: a new low, I think.

By people like Rudy I mean known criminals with a history of harassing women, a history of carrying knives while committing crimes, a history of housebreaking including using a rock through a window to gain access to a property and so on. Criminals with established M.O.s consistent with the crime.

As opposed to student lovers with absolutely no history of violent crime, and no motive.

You're right that there is a mountain of evidence. You are completely wrong that it's bad ir irrelevant. Far from it and that's exactly the point...there's a clear pattern of evidence that puts them at the crime scene and murdering Meredith Kercher. Nobody however, can offer a single shred of evidence to show they weren't.

This is straightforwardly false. We've been posting to each other about the lack of physical evidence in the murder room and whether or not this is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were not present, so you cannot be unaware of that issue.

To say that courts have been wrong 'before' and then use that as the basis for an argument that they are wrong in this case is pretty poor...and rather desperate.

Rubbish. Total rubbish. The whole point of this thread is analysing whether or not the courts got it wrong in this case. Courts to get it wrong sometimes, so it's a perfectly valid question to ask. The argument that the court must be right in this case because courts are right in most cases is blatantly question-begging.

It's not a 'label', it's an apt description of the basis of your argument...'Whoever leaves the most evidence at a crime scene wins the prize and gets to be found guilty and sent to jail, while all the other people who left evidence get to be declared innocent and allowed to go home, simply because they left less'.

This is yet another of your straw men. Nobody has ever stated that this is their position, or that your (imaginary) "score card" system should be used in assessing guilt or innocence.

You keep trying to find easy ways to dismiss this argument because there simply is no sensible answer to it. There is no plausible way that Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele could have ganged up to kill Meredith in such a way that Rudy leaves slam-dunk evidence of his guilt all over the room and the body yet Amanda and Raffaele leave absolutely nothing. Nor is there any way that Amanda and Raffaele could have cleaned up the murder room so as to eliminate all trace of their presence yet leave copious evidence to convict Rudy. Nor would it make any sense to postulate that they just got amazingly lucky in the murder room, and knew they got amazingly lucky, so they cleaned up the evidence outside the murder room and left the murder room intact knowing that nothing in there could convict them.

If you were more honest you could have said "Well, I have no answer to that question. It's a problem all right, and I don't know how that happened. But I still think the totality of evidence is enough to convict Knox and Solecito". That would not be a position I would agree with but it would at least be somewhat reasonable.

As for the physical evidence 'proving' that Rudy murdered Meredith, actually it doesn't. All it 'proves' is that he was 'there'. On balance of probability, it shows he was certainly involved in Meredith's murder. Just in the same way, the evidence shows on balance of probability that Raffaele and Amanda were there and involved in Meredith's murder, with in fact Amanda and Raffaele wielding the knives that killed her.

You're technically correct. In theory someone other than Rudy could have murdered Meredith and then later Rudy could have come in, cut her bra off, molested her corpse, touched her blood and left bloody hand and finger prints, cut himself on the hand in a fashion consistent with an amateur stabbing someone using a small knife with no hand guard and then nicked off. I don't think it's very likely though.

The argument that there is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were in the room at the time does not, in my view, reach even the level of being more probable than not. The argument that there is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele stabbed Meredith is in my view completely ridiculous - Meredith's wounds are consistent with a single attacker with a single, small blade (as seen in the bloody knife-print on the sheet) attacking from behind, and Rudy's wounded hand is consistent with that story as well. Whereas there is no proper evidence at all Amanda or Raffaele ever held a knife - just the highly suspect "second murder weapon" which doesn't match the victim's wounds.

Complicated case? Earlier you were saying it's a very simple case. You need to make your mind up.

You need to find a citation for the claim that I said it was a very simple case, I think.

Also, do you have an actual citation for your claim that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp, as opposed to your mere word? Since that claim of your contradicts every other source I have found I am not willing to accept your unsupported word.

 

[Mary_H]

By the way, I would thank you not to insert your answers within a quote of my post, it puts words in my mouth...know what I mean?

Do you mean the responses I wrote in blue? Be sure to let Sherlock know how you feel, because I was following his lead.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you mean the responses I wrote in blue? Be sure to let Sherlock know how you feel, because I was following his lead.

Sory, sorry sorry, I'm just a student, I thought that would be a good way to reply to each question, but I do see his point, and like a good student, I will learn. Thankyou, it won't happen again.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This isn't rational, skeptical analysis in action. Whether or not Knox and Solecito are guilty, it's simply a fact that the Amanda-is-guilty posters here are doing it wrong.

It's interesting how some people get it and others don't. I think there are a number of things going on. One is that many people decided early on, because of media coverage, that Amanda is guilty. They have rationalized the slow dissolution of the case by telling themselves that the authorities have 10,000 pages of evidence that the public hasn't seen, and they know what they are doing.

A second, related element is that the public tends to assume that the police and the courts are on the side of virtue. People cannot believe that police would terrorize an innocent suspect in an interrogation, or that the authorities would railroad an innocent person to avoid admitting a mistake. No list of real-world examples will convince them otherwise.

A third factor is that most people don't follow criminal investigations and have little understanding of how the police operate. They can't see that this investigation was thoroughly bungled from the start, because they don't know how it's supposed to be done. They think the police had no choice but to arrest Lumumba, that evidence contamination is merely a theoretical problem cited by defense lawyers, and there is no reason to get reference DNA from anyone except suspects. They also can't differentiate reliable evidence from junk evidence.

It all adds up to an inability to see the obvious. Amanda Knox did not rape and kill her housemate, nor did she help someone else do so.

 

[stilicho]

It's something you learn if you read about criminal investigations. One case that comes to the top of my mind is the Central Park Jogger. They got a DNA sample from her boyfriend that matched some DNA on her clothing. They didn't suspect him of being involved in the crime. They wanted to eliminate those samples as relevant to their investigation.

So my news stories and uncorroborated anecdotes say DNA "sweeps" are ineffective and possibly a privacy concern. Yours says that a victim's boyfriend was ruled out by a request for a sample. I don't see any contradiction.

The problem with relying solely on DNA to rule out suspects should be obvious. Halides1 has produced a thick folio of these. Frankly, I'd be much more concerned about any of their involvement if the prosecution case was based purely on DNA analyses.

Do you know if the victim's boyfriend supplied a sample without consulting his lawyer? He would have to know that he was on their list of suspects.

 

[stilicho]

I've shuffled from the bathroom to my bedroom many times using a towel or bathmat when I've forgotten my towel, to avoid leaving wet footprints on the floor and also to avoid dripping everywhere.

With that kind of bathmat? I call shenanigans.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

With that kind of bathmat? I call shenanigans.

What else would you use in that situation? What alternative course of action do you hold to be so much more plausible, that scooting on a bath mat turns into evidence of murder?

 

[Mary_H]

Sory, sorry sorry, I'm just a student, I thought that would be a good way to reply to each question, but I do see his point, and like a good student, I will learn. Thankyou, it won't happen again.

Nothing to apologize for, Sherlock. He doesn't really mind; he just wanted to reprimand me in general.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
But there is when you work from the total assumption that the lab got everything right when it came to Rudy and everything wrong when it came to Amanda and Raffaele.

Nobody has ever said anything resembling this. In fact this specific claim has been denied repeatedly. As straw men go this can't be excused as a simple misreading. Stilicho has echoed this same talking point as well.

Must have missed it then. I thought you said you believed Rudy was guilty, based on the evidence, and the Amanda and Raffaele were not guilty, based on the evidence. I thought you added that it was always possible that they were wrong about any of the three or right about any of the three.

By people like Rudy I mean known criminals with a history of harassing women, a history of carrying knives while committing crimes, a history of housebreaking including using a rock through a window to gain access to a property and so on. Criminals with established M.O.s consistent with the crime.

As opposed to student lovers with absolutely no history of violent crime, and no motive.

Then you go right back into FOA mode. Let's straighten out a few things:

1. Amanda and Raffaele were not student lovers. They were what you'd call ****-buddies in the common parlance. Amanda was involved with many different men during her young adulthood and Raffaele was not the only man she bedded while in Perugia.
2. Raffaele carried a knife by habit that would be illegal in most jurisdictions. It's what the mercenary magazines call a tactical combat knife. These are called folding knives at your local hardware store. Look up designers like Brian Tighe and knife manufactures like Spyderco.
3. There's a strong probability that Amanda and Raffaele didn't know about Rudy's alleged break-ins. Even if they did, the spot they selected was the least likely entry point for a real burglar. And Rudy knew the house well enough to pick the easiest point rather than a nearly impossible point. If Rudy was an experienced second-storey man then you'd be arguing on the same side as the prosecution.
4. Amanda had a troubling past including the party for which she received a citation. I don't want to make more of this than what it was but you have to admit that--of all the three--Amanda had been in more trouble with the law than any of them.
5. None of the three had a prior history of violent crime or sexual assault.

We've been through all the FOA talking points here several times over. Some of their points may have merit but many--such as the ones you've chosen--are entirely baseless.

 

[stilicho]

What else would you use in that situation? What alternative course of action do you hold to be so much more plausible, that scooting on a bath mat turns into evidence of murder?

That bathmat doesn't "scoot". That's why Amanda invented the hopping and half-shuffling manuveur. Get one of that style of bathmats from the hardware store and try what she said she did.

 

[stilicho]

I would be very surprised to find the P&Ps of any police force published online (for good reason). Perhaps you could, however, discuss the matter with homicide investigators in various forces (in your own city and others in your province) and see what they are willing to tell you.

The problem is that it would only be hearsay.

We also don't know for sure that they didn't swab G Silenzo, the boy Meredith was dating from the downstairs of the house. That would likely not have come up at the trial anyhow and I don't know if it's included in the Massei report.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

With that kind of bathmat? I call shenanigans.

I agree, I know I for one would just walk out and get a towel, my wife though, on the other hand would do the same, except she would be more concerned about covering herself up, even with a bathmat than geting water on the floor.
Amanda knew there was a mop in the house anyway, the main reason she was there, how long would it take to mop that up?

 

[Amazer]

It's interesting how some people get it and others don't. I think there are a number of things going on. One is that many people decided early on, because of media coverage, that Amanda is guilty. They have rationalized the slow dissolution of the case by telling themselves that the authorities have 10,000 pages of evidence that the public hasn't seen, and they know what they are doing.

Which is no different from people who early on decided that Amanda is innocent and no amount of evidence is going to convince them otherwise.

A second, related element is that the public tends to assume that the police and the courts are on the side of virtue. People cannot believe that police would terrorize an innocent suspect in an interrogation, or that the authorities would railroad an innocent person to avoid admitting a mistake. No list of real-world examples will convince them otherwise.

Examples are great, but that only tells us a little about the similarities between the varies cases. It doesn't tell us what exactly happened in this particular case. A lot of the factors that you (generic you) have mentioned that played a role in the examples that you gave, also play a role in normal investigations where guilt is not in question.

A third factor is that most people don't follow criminal investigations and have little understanding of how the police operate. They can't see that this investigation was thoroughly bungled from the start, because they don't know how it's supposed to be done.

Again, this cuts both ways. It doesn't only effect people who think that Amanda is guilty.

They think the police had no choice but to arrest Lumumba, that evidence contamination is merely a theoretical problem cited by defense lawyers, and there is no reason to get reference DNA from anyone except suspects. They also can't differentiate reliable evidence from junk evidence.

I'd say that your unfamiliarity with Italian law might be playing a part here. They did have to arrest Lumumba.
I'd also say that regarding contamination it's the defense that keeps it a theoretical problem. They are not providing the evidence that is required to move it from being a theoretical problem to being an actual problem.
As for not being able to differentiate between reliable evidence from junk evidence... perhaps it's true. It does mean that the defense has done a very poor job though. It means that, for whatever reason, you are not doing a very good job of communicating what is reliable and what is junk evidence.

It all adds up to an inability to see the obvious. Amanda Knox did not rape and kill her housemate, nor did she help someone else do so.

No, it all adds up to the defense doing a very poor job of communicating and providing evidence that counters the accusation against Amanda. As a result the evidence against Amanda is considered of sufficient quality to enable those involved to arrive at a guilty verdict.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda had a troubling past including the party for which she received a citation. I don't want to make more of this than what it was but you have to admit that--of all the three--Amanda had been in more trouble with the law than any of them.

This is such a pathetic argument; I can't believe anyone is still bringing it up. Obviously, you do want to make more of it than it is; otherwise, you wouldn't mention it. Rudy had been in more trouble with the law than any of them; he just had not been arrested for his crimes. And he actually did have a troubled past, unlike Amanda, who had been in school for sixteen years and had held several legitimate jobs.

Here is the noise citation. It is not a record of a crime.

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Must have missed it then. I thought you said you believed Rudy was guilty, based on the evidence, and the Amanda and Raffaele were not guilty, based on the evidence. I thought you added that it was always possible that they were wrong about any of the three or right about any of the three.



Then you go right back into FOA mode. Let's straighten out a few things:

1. Amanda and Raffaele were not student lovers. They were what you'd call ****-buddies in the common parlance. Amanda was involved with many different men during her young adulthood and Raffaele was not the only man she bedded while in Perugia.
2. Raffaele carried a knife by habit that would be illegal in most jurisdictions. It's what the mercenary magazines call a tactical combat knife. These are called folding knives at your local hardware store. Look up designers like Brian Tighe and knife manufactures like Spyderco.
3. There's a strong probability that Amanda and Raffaele didn't know about Rudy's alleged break-ins. Even if they did, the spot they selected was the least likely entry point for a real burglar. And Rudy knew the house well enough to pick the easiest point rather than a nearly impossible point. If Rudy was an experienced second-storey man then you'd be arguing on the same side as the prosecution.
4. Amanda had a troubling past including the party for which she received a citation. I don't want to make more of this than what it was but you have to admit that--of all the three--Amanda had been in more trouble with the law than any of them.
5. None of the three had a prior history of violent crime or sexual assault.

We've been through all the FOA talking points here several times over. Some of their points may have merit but many--such as the ones you've chosen--are entirely baseless.

I think you missed the mark, Stilicho.

The better response to the quoted part of KL's diatribe would be:

"Do you have evidence of Rudy having a criminal record?"



We've been over this time and again. Rudy does not have the criminal record those who believe in Amanda's innocence would have the rest of the world believe. However, if mere hearsay is acceptable, I suppose those of us who believe the evidence points to the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele can drag up the old rumor regarding Amanda's rape prank from college. (yes, I know, true tu-quoque).

Interesting, isn't it, that one side won't allow hearsay about Amanda, while meanwhile spewing twisted hearsay about Rudy.

Rudy has as much of a criminal record as Amanda. Rudy has as much of a history of violence as Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree, I know I for one would just walk out and get a towel, my wife though, on the other hand would do the same, except she would be more concerned about covering herself up, even with a bathmat than geting water on the floor.
Amanda knew there was a mop in the house anyway, the main reason she was there, how long would it take to mop that up?

I think she used the mat more to prevent herself from slipping on the wet floor than anything else. If she had used the mop, there would have been blood evidence in it.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Must have missed it then. I thought you said you believed Rudy was guilty, based on the evidence, and the Amanda and Raffaele were not guilty, based on the evidence. I thought you added that it was always possible that they were wrong about any of the three or right about any of the three.



Then you go right back into FOA mode. Let's straighten out a few things:

1. Amanda and Raffaele were not student lovers. They were what you'd call ****-buddies in the common parlance. Amanda was involved with many different men during her young adulthood and Raffaele was not the only man she bedded while in Perugia.
2. Raffaele carried a knife by habit that would be illegal in most jurisdictions. It's what the mercenary magazines call a tactical combat knife. These are called folding knives at your local hardware store. Look up designers like Brian Tighe and knife manufactures like Spyderco.
3. There's a strong probability that Amanda and Raffaele didn't know about Rudy's alleged break-ins. Even if they did, the spot they selected was the least likely entry point for a real burglar. And Rudy knew the house well enough to pick the easiest point rather than a nearly impossible point. If Rudy was an experienced second-storey man then you'd be arguing on the same side as the prosecution.
4. Amanda had a troubling past including the party for which she received a citation. I don't want to make more of this than what it was but you have to admit that--of all the three--Amanda had been in more trouble with the law than any of them.
5. None of the three had a prior history of violent crime or sexual assault.

We've been through all the FOA talking points here several times over. Some of their points may have merit but many--such as the ones you've chosen--are entirely baseless.

It's funny that you respond to alleged "FOA" talking points with even lamer talking points.

First. How the **** would you know if they were **** buddies or lovers? Were you spying on them in the bedroom? You really have no idea what you're talking about and just resort to making emotional arguments because you don't like Amanda Knox very much. Did you go back in time to take notes while watching them get it on?

Second, getting a noise violation ticket is not having a troubling past. You make much out of nothing. Incidentally, so did the court in Italy where they were so pathetic that they introduced a Daily Mail Article as evidence in court. You take one thing (or maybe the stupid "rape prank" which is just PMF jargon to begin with) and blow it completely out proportion as a way to analyze someone's entire upbringing. It's pathetic. "Troubling Past"--get real. You don't know anything about it.

Third, your folding knife argument is just plain desperate. I hope you're not all high on this stupid idea because some weirdo made a post about it on your favorite blog. I own folding knives. I'll bet a lot of people on this forum have a similar knife.

Fourth. Ya, for some reason Rudy was let go. God knows why. But last time I checked neither Amanda or Raffale broke into a *********** nursery. And by the way, I've been made privy to one of the other crimes Rudy should have been charged with. It's way worse than anything that's been reported, and it's corroborated, and it's violent, and it provides even more evidence of an M.O.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think she used the mat more to prevent herself from slipping on the wet floor than anything else. If she had used the mop, there would have been blood evidence in it.

So she hopped/boogied down the hallway on the mat - and then back again after drying off? That's realistic to you?

I can see (sort of) using the bathmat to get to the room for a towel (not so easy to do this with a rubber-backed mat, btw), but then to do so back to the bathroom after toweling off? What was the point of that - there was no water on her feet to cause her to slip, she wasn't going to drip water everywhere, etc.

And as for slippery floors...she very easily could have dried her feet off on the bathmat before leaving the bathroom - in fact, I do believe that's what she stated she did before her boogie.



And as for the "footprint-through-the-bathmat" theory...that's just laughable. As is the "maybe-some-of-the-blood-in-the-hallway-was-still-wet".

I realize, Mary, that these are not necessarily your arguments...I simply choose to address all the ridiculous theories for the "bathmat-boogie" in this post.