Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

That isn't how it happened. It happened when the murderer cleaned up using the the bidet. Look at these pictures:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bidet01.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bidet02.jpg

Thanks Charlie, but those photos don't answer my question. How could someone with a lot of blood on the bottom of their bare foot (feet?) not leave bloody footprints leading from Meredith's room to the bathroom where one eventually ended up on the bathmat?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I won't answer the question about the window because I'm not convinced that's how he got in. I think he locked the door to prevent Meredith from getting out. He wasn't convinced he had killed her.

Hi Mary, long time no talk, hope your well and all.

Anyway, I found it interesting, the comment you made above, I'm pretty sure I've never heard an FOA'er claim that. I'm always open to listening to new idea's and I can't wait to hear this one if you get the time. You may slowly be comming around, another 6 months and maybe you too will agree, Rudy couldn't have locked that door either.

 

[Supernaut]

Something I don't understand about that bloody footprint. Obviously it was made by a naked foot that had blood on the bottom of it. My question is: how did the person walk from the murder room with blood on the bottom of their feet (or foot) and not track that blood from the bedroom to the bathrooom?

The print could have been made by standing on another item soaked in blood (a towel for example) lying on the bath mat.

Or refer to CW's reply earlier.

Whatever, I assume you are about to attempt another "gotcha!" in support of the "crime scene cleanup" (by AK and RS).

 

[Supernaut]

I have no doubt Meredith tried to fight back, but she had little to no chance of surviving a struggle with Rudy. He had to have been many times stronger than she, and he was armed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009559117_websouthpark29m.html

Guede is relatively slightlybuilt but agile (basketball), in his prime, and his slightness would be deceptive - he's still without doubt much stronger than most women.

Contrary to assertions that more than one assailant was required to inflct the injuries Meredith suffered, he was easily capable of overpowering her on his own with the briefest of struggles - a matter of seconds.

So many people don’t realise that you simply MUST NOT antagonise someone menacing you with a knife (or gun) in any way whatsoever - don't scream, don't fight, don't run - unless you are certain you can either escape from them or incapactiate them (which basically means picking up something you can bludgeon them with, and using it with the intention of breaking bones).

In the face of a determined knife attack by a fit young male, even an equally fit male with years of hand-to-hand combat training is unlikely to come of it unscathed. Meredith never stood a chance.

 

[Chris C]

Thanks Charlie, but those photos don't answer my question. How could someone with a lot of blood on the bottom of their bare foot (feet?) not leave bloody footprints leading from Meredith's room to the bathroom where one eventually ended up on the bathmat?

1. Rudy breaks in. Raids the fridge, takes a crap. Probably has the munchies.
2. Meredith comes home while he is in apartment. He might even be sitting on the toilet.
3. Meredith locks door and goes to her room.
4. Rudy can't get out and confronts Meredith.
5. Rudy subdues Meredith. Meredith might have grabbed the phone in the struggle and tried to use it.
6. Takes his pants and shoes off and either rapes her or tries to rape her. Either during the rape or after the rape things get out of hand and Rudy stabs her 2 times and then cuts her throat. (if he decided to just drop his pants and rape her without taking his shoes off, he would be at a disadvantage of not being able to move if Meredith tried to escape. His pants would be at his ankles)
7. During the stabbing rudy gets blood on himself. Doesn't get blood on the bottom of his feet.
8. Rudy goes to the bathroom and washes off in the sink. There is a towel under his feet. (I sometimes leave towels on the floor after showering or throw one on the floor to stand on it.) Rudy gets blood on the mat while washing off leaving a partial footprint.
9. Rudy either returns to room to get his clothes or brought them with him to the bathroom. Brings the bloody towels with him. I'm guessing there was blood on the towels. I haven't seen a picture. Decides to rummage through her purse looking for money and stuff. Having just lost his stolen phones the previous week to the police, Rudy grabs both of Merediths phones.
10. He steps in blood while in the room, however his shoes are now on.
11. Rudy walks out of room and locks door. I dont know what kinda door lock it is.
12. Rudy leaves thinking no one will discover the body for awhile since his tossed the towels in the room and locked the door.
13. Decides to toss the phones so they won't be traced back to him. Very possiblely could have accidentily dialed a number while wiping off his fingerprints.
14. Changes into clothes without blood and goes clubbing. Then later skips town.


Now as to the question how could someone not leave bloody footprints to the bathroom. Their feet were not bloody. The luminol didn't detect footprints going to the bathroom. Yet it did detect small footprints leaving them. Small footprints that dont match the big bloody one. So therefore the body of their feet were not bloody when they went to the bathroom.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks Charlie, but those photos don't answer my question. How could someone with a lot of blood on the bottom of their bare foot (feet?) not leave bloody footprints leading from Meredith's room to the bathroom where one eventually ended up on the bathmat?

Seriously? How about this:

1) Murderer gets blood on hands and clothes while committing the murder, but not on soles of shoes;
2) Murderer walks into small bathroom (leaving no bloody shoeprints, obv), and removes shoe (or shoes) in order to wash off hands and bloody trouser leg in bidet;
3) Murderer places naked foot in blood/water mixture pooling in the pan of the bidet while washing off hands, arms and trouser leg;
4) Murderer removes naked foot from bidet, which now has a blood/water mix on sole;
5) Murderer places foot on bathmat, leaving blood/water footprint on bathmat;
6) Murderer dries off foot (and hands/arms/face) using towel in small bathroom;
7) Murderer replaces shoes in small bathroom;
8) Murderer returns to Meredith's bedroom, carrying towel (leaving no bloody shoeprints from still-clean shoe soles);

Guede himself stated that he got towels from the small bathroom. Why would he insert this detail if it was totally untrue? I contend that he mentioned it (in the context of his bogus story of trying to help Meredith) because he knew that traces of him might be found either in the small bathroom or on the towels. Of course, the crack Perugia forensic police allowed the towels to become mouldy, thereby precluding proper forensic analysis. Good work!

 

[LondonJohn]

No. You don't get off by saying "show me first". I asked specifically about the linked abstracts you say prove your theory on TOD.

You can also claim copyright issues or tell me to buy the articles myself or you can just describe what you read in them when you bought them.

Since your whole argument was predicated on suggesting that either Kevin_Lowe or I were contradicting "honest research", it's perfectly acceptable for me to ask what this "honest research" is first. Because I don't believe that there actually is any such research that Kevin and I are supposed to be contradicting.

You have a recent history of posting links to research which is irrelevant (in terms of timings) to the key findings of Meredith's autopsy. You either don't even realise this when you post those links, or you do realise it and are being disingenuous. Tell me which "honest research" is directly contradictory in terms of T(lag) (or even T(1/2)) times, then we can have a proper discussion. Until then, I stand 100% behind my assertion that Meredith's post-mortem stomach/intestinal contents indicate that she must have died within 3 hours maximum (and probably nearer to 2.5 hours) of consuming her pizza meal.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Alt+F4]

Seriously? How about this:

1) Murderer gets blood on hands and clothes while committing the murder, but not on soles of shoes;

The room was filled with blood. How is it he was able to leave Meredith's room with no blood on the soles of his shoes but when he returned to the room he did get blood on them?

2) Murderer walks into small bathroom (leaving no bloody shoeprints, obv), and removes shoe (or shoes) in order to wash off hands and bloody trouser leg in bidet;

Why would someone need to take off their shoes and socks in order to wash their hands? No one saw Rudy leave the apartment so what makes you think his trouser leg had blood on it?

3) Murderer places naked foot in blood/water mixture pooling in the pan of the bidet while washing off hands, arms and trouser leg;

Wow, Rudy must be really tall to be able to wash his feet in the bidet while at the same time washing his hands in the sink.

4) Murderer removes naked foot from bidet, which now has a blood/water mix on sole;
5) Murderer places foot on bathmat, leaving blood/water footprint on bathmat;
6) Murderer dries off foot (and hands/arms/face) using towel in small bathroom;
7) Murderer replaces shoes in small bathroom;
8) Murderer returns to Meredith's bedroom, carrying towel (leaving no bloody shoeprints from still-clean shoe soles);

Why would he go through all this trouble when he didn't have a problem with leaving bloody shoe prints down the hall and right out the door?

 

[christianahannah]

Seriously? How about this:

1) Murderer gets blood on hands and clothes while committing the murder, but not on soles of shoes;
2) Murderer walks into small bathroom (leaving no bloody shoeprints, obv), and removes shoe (or shoes) in order to wash off hands and bloody trouser leg in bidet;
3) Murderer places naked foot in blood/water mixture pooling in the pan of the bidet while washing off hands, arms and trouser leg;
4) Murderer removes naked foot from bidet, which now has a blood/water mix on sole;
5) Murderer places foot on bathmat, leaving blood/water footprint on bathmat;
6) Murderer dries off foot (and hands/arms/face) using towel in small bathroom;
7) Murderer replaces shoes in small bathroom;
8) Murderer returns to Meredith's bedroom, carrying towel (leaving no bloody shoeprints from still-clean shoe soles);

Guede himself stated that he got towels from the small bathroom. Why would he insert this detail if it was totally untrue? I contend that he mentioned it (in the context of his bogus story of trying to help Meredith) because he knew that traces of him might be found either in the small bathroom or on the towels. Of course, the crack Perugia forensic police allowed the towels to become mouldy, thereby precluding proper forensic analysis. Good work!

The above scenario does not seem very likely to me (of how the footprint became on the bathmat). As far as Guede, it is reported he has said many things which are not true. Who knows the mind of a murderer?

Two of the towels did yield forensic results. According to Charlie Wilkes pdf document there were three towels recovered from Meredith's room (if there were more towels they were not listed on the document) - 1. Green towel found beneath Meredith's body; 2. Light-colored towel found next to Meredith's body; 3. Beige towel on mattress.

Both the light-colored and beige towel samples yielded DNA profiles of Meredith but no one else. The green towel samples yielded no DNA profiles - but it is unclear as to why this towel did not yield profiles. Perhaps it was incorrect collection procedures, perhaps it was because this towel was beneath Meredith, blood-soaked and there for quite some time before collection. (Charlie writes: According to Frank Sfarzo, the reason no DNA profile was obtained from this bloody towel is because the blood became rotten before the tests were performed.)

Also, all three towels had hair formations which were unsuitable for DNA testing. I do not know much about testing of hair so I do not know what the reasons would be for unsuitability for testing.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary, long time no talk, hope your well and all.

Anyway, I found it interesting, the comment you made above, I'm pretty sure I've never heard an FOA'er claim that. I'm always open to listening to new idea's and I can't wait to hear this one if you get the time. You may slowly be comming around, another 6 months and maybe you too will agree, Rudy couldn't have locked that door either.

Thank you, Sherlock; how courteous! The same to you.

I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation.

Alas, you must abandon hope -- I will never "come around," as you say, and I have faith that in 6 months Amanda will be back in Seattle.

The evidence of what happened at the cottage is irrelevant in my mind, because Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. The police had no evidence against them when they illegally interrogated and then jailed them. Any evidence that "appeared" later was contrived.

 

[Malkmus]

The room was filled with blood. How is it he was able to leave Meredith's room with no blood on the soles of his shoes but when he returned to the room he did get blood on them?

The entire floor wasn't covered in blood. Just because he didn't step in any the first time isn't proof of anything. After he finished cleaning himself up he may have realized he still had to get Meredith's keys so he could exit through the front door. It's not unthinkable that in his haste to escape he accidentally stepped in some blood, unbeknownst to him. His thought process at that point was probably just to get the heck out of there. I believe his motive in washing up was to get home unnoticed, not to cover up traces of a crime.

Why would someone need to take off their shoes and socks in order to wash their hands? No one saw Rudy leave the apartment so what makes you think his trouser leg had blood on it?

From Rudy's diary:

I left the house in shock. I was outside, but didn’t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt.

Why would he go through all this trouble when he didn't have a problem with leaving bloody shoe prints down the hall and right out the door?

Again, not unthinkable that in his haste to leave he simply didn't notice he had stepped in blood. Most of your questions revolve around the presumption that because Rudy tried somewhat to clean himself up that he would also have tried to remove traces of himself at the crime scene. I think there's a big difference there. I believe all the cleaning up he did was on himself in order to walk back home unnoticed, and that he was not concerned with trying to clean up any of the actual traces he'd left of himself in the cottage.

 

[Malkmus]

Just a thought on the whole "will you ever change your opinion" notion that's been coming up...

I think it will be harder for those on the innocent to switch over to thinking Amanda and Raf are guilty because the majority of them have been well versed in all the reasons they were found to be guilty in the first place. With the release of the motivations report and the appeals documents it seems that most of the new information is in regards to what went wrong the first time around as well as seeing how the judge simply glossed over relevant facts or made ridiculous assumptions that even most guilters don't believe in. It seems very unlikely that the prosecutors in the appeals trial will present any new evidence to support their claims and we've only seen the destruction of most of the old claims anyway. Let's not forget that Rose was on the guilty side for a while before changing her mind.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Quote: I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation.

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

 

[el buscador]

Something I've been wondering about. Meredith put in a load of laundry before she left for the evening. I've often done this so that I can save time in doing laundry. It washes while I'm out and as soon as I get home I put the cloths in the dryer or on a drying rack so the cloths won't get that mildewy smell or get too wrinkled. It seems odd that Meredith would lay around eating and playing with her phone for over an hour after getting home and not do something about her wet cloths, according to the report.

I also wondered if this is how she discovered rudy was in the house since the laundry room is connected to the big bathroom.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Something I don't understand about that bloody footprint. Obviously it was made by a naked foot that had blood on the bottom of it. My question is: how did the person walk from the murder room with blood on the bottom of their feet (or foot) and not track that blood from the bedroom to the bathrooom?

Thanks Charlie, but those photos don't answer my question. How could someone with a lot of blood on the bottom of their bare foot (feet?) not leave bloody footprints leading from Meredith's room to the bathroom where one eventually ended up on the bathmat?

The short answer to this and a lot of other questions is "We don't know, and if we are solely concerned with the guilt or innocence of Raffaele and Amanda we don't care either". It's consistent with being Rudy's footprint more so than Raffaele's, so whatever contortions Rudy went through to get the footprint there it's still not evidence that anyone other than Rudy did it.

Someone (Mary I think) speculated that Rudy might have gotten blood on his trouser leg and sock, and washed them in the shower. That would explain how he moved to the bathroom without leaving bloody footprints, and then got a mixture of blood and water on his foot once he was there. It's consistent with what we know and explains the footprint, but that doesn't mean it's true. In the end exactly how the footprint got there doesn't matter.

I agree with your first two points, that Meredith's stomach contents prove she was dead no later than around 10:00pm and that the 10:13 call on one of her cell phones proves that phone was far from her apartment. Please provide more information regarding Raffaele playing Naruto on his computer until 9:49. As far as I know, after 9:10 there was no "human interaction" on his computer until the next morning.

I posted the relevant quote from Raffaele's appeal documents within my last few posts. However in the interests of keeping this mole down, here's a link.

As best I can make out, the prosecution looked at Raffaele's hard drive and claimed that the last computer activity was at 21:10. However the defence, once they had a copy of his hard drive contents and installed it on a properly configured same-model MacBook, showed that this claim was incorrect and that a Naruto movie file had in fact been opened at 21:26. (What a surprise, the prosecution got the facts wrong again).

As far as I can ascertain a Naruto episode shorn of ads is about 23:xx minutes long. Thus if he actually watched the episode (and everyone agrees the crime was unpremeditated and hence he can't have been trying to set himself up with an alibi) his location is confirmed until 21:49.

Computer activity at 21:10 is already strong evidence of his innocence, since Meredith was probably stabbed around then if not earlier and it would take time to get from his house to the murder scene. Computer activity at 21:26 puts him well into the clear. A plausible case that he was at home until at least 21:49 makes it incredibly unlikely he could possibly have been involved in any way.

His "known MO" never consisted of sexual assult or murder.

True. Breaking in to a second-story window and wandering around for an extended period while in possession of a knife is, however. I still find it odd that the Perugia police never thought to check to see if there was a known local villain with dark, curly hair and a compatible M.O., but then again there are a lot of very odd things about the police's behaviour in this case.

No. There is no "hard evidence" that Knox or Sollecito were at his apartment when Meredith was murdered.

I call a record of computer activity from 21:26 hard evidence, especially when it comes with a built-in viewing time of 23 minutes. Combine that with travel time and Raffaele is hard put to get to Amanda's house in time to commit murder even if it was a premeditated crime and he clicked on his Naruto file, bolted out the front door and ran over to stab Meredith as soon as he was through the door.

Since absolutely nobody is alleging that, and the prosecution theory is that the murder occurred at the end of a long, drug-fuelled sex romp gone wrong, that's the end of the prosecution theory. Raffaele couldn't have been there in time for this theory to be correct.

 

[Malkmus]

Something I've been wondering about. Meredith put in a load of laundry before she left for the evening. I've often done this so that I can save time in doing laundry. It washes while I'm out and as soon as I get home I put the cloths in the dryer or on a drying rack so the cloths won't get that mildewy smell or get too wrinkled. It seems odd that Meredith would lay around eating and playing with her phone for over an hour after getting home and not do something about her wet cloths, according to the report. I also wondered if this is how she discovered rudy was in the house since the laundry room is connected to the big bathroom.

Excellent point!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quote: I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation.

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

Bear in mind that the only "solid" evidence we have for a staged break-in relies on the word of police at the scene, who didn't document their claimed observations with photographic or video evidence. The claim that there was no glass below the window and that all the glass in Filomena's room was on top of the mess cannot be verified: the only evidence for those claims is the word of investigating police.

We know the investigators were incompetent on some points (proper DNA evidence collection procedure, computer forensics) and unethical on some points (lying to Amanda about her HIV tests, leaking false claims to the media). Believing with certainty that the break-in was staged relies on believing with certainty that the police were not incompetent or unethical upon this particular point, and I don't think any rational person can have certainty about that, given what we know.

Given that Rudy has a known criminal history for breaking into buildings in exactly this way, and that it's not unreasonable to assume that he got away with these sorts of break-ins several times for each time he was caught red-handed, he probably had substantial practise climbing into broken windows. Guilters try to ridicule the idea that a fit young man who had done it often before could have climbed into that window, but there's nothing unlikely about the idea.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Quote: Bear in mind that the only "solid" evidence we have for a staged break-in relies on the word of police at the scene, who didn't document their claimed observations with photographic or video evidence.

And Filomena's observation and statement as well. (page 43 of translated version) I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41), and she noticed this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: "It was really a stupid burglar; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was actually on top of the things"

I am not anti- or pro-AK; at this point I am really trying to decide. I'm just sayin' we do have that other testimony.

One of my biggest problems with the whole case is, it seems to me, to be pro-AK, you must throw out a serious amount of evidence. Mistaken witnesses, shoddy police work, incompetent lab techs, etc. I have a hard time reconciling the fact that all of those people would have to have been mistaken, incompetent, lying, etc.

 

[Alt+F4]

Guilters try to ridicule the idea that a fit young man who had done it often before could have climbed into that window, but there's nothing unlikely about the idea.

How did Rudy climb through the window and ransack Filomena's room without leaving a single fingerprint, any DNA or a footprint anywhere in the room?

 

[Danceme]

Since your whole argument was predicated on suggesting that either Kevin_Lowe or I were contradicting "honest research", it's perfectly acceptable for me to ask what this "honest research" is first. Because I don't believe that there actually is any such research that Kevin and I are supposed to be contradicting.

I didn't predicate my argument on suggesting either of you were "contradicting honest research". You were citing supposed facts on digestion as if they were carved in stone. I said many times I have yet to find any article which described basing TOD on stomach contents as any sort of exact science whatsoever and everything I'd found warned of the limitations in doing so yet you continued to post the same conclusion over and over without stating where or why you found this particular conclusion so authoritative. I asked for links and was given abstracts to which I asked for more information, which you surely must have had if you were placing such great faith in what you had read. However twice now you have evaded the issue by throwing it back to me. I still contend that if you are expecting people just to take your word for it that doesn't fly. I want the meat of the analysis and form my own opinion. Your continued evasiveness just makes me think you did not even read the complete articles whose abstracts you posted links to or even go beyond that in your research.

You have a recent history of posting links to research which is irrelevant (in terms of timings) to the key findings of Meredith's autopsy. You either don't even realise this when you post those links, or you do realise it and are being disingenuous. Tell me which "honest research" is directly contradictory in terms of T(lag) (or even T(1/2)) times, then we can have a proper discussion. Until then, I stand 100% behind my assertion that Meredith's post-mortem stomach/intestinal contents indicate that she must have died within 3 hours maximum (and probably nearer to 2.5 hours) of consuming her pizza meal.

Thanks in advance!

You accused me of basing my analysis purely on gastric emptying times because I mentioned it in these terms in my post which also suggests you didn't read the study I posted which, as in almost all articles on the subject, also dealt with the half-emptying time you say I've ignored. Why is my research irrelevant and yours not?

Besides, I'm not the one claiming to be the expert on this, you are. I research to see if I can find information myself when someone posts something as you did, describing your findings as the definitive word on the subject.

Oh and, you're very welcome of course.