Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Snarkiness is soooo convincing. Please give your arguments? Thanks.

I don't care a jot about "convincing" other people. Why would I? I believe Knox and Sollecito may well have been unjustly convicted, and I enjoy debating my reasons behind that opinion. I'm not doing it in order to convince others of my position though. I guess some other are, though....

Oh, and I've already explained why I believe the term "millimetre precision" is risibly inappropriate when applied to any analysis of the bathmat print.

And ahhhh, the lovely word "snarky" (and its variations). Now where have I heard that before.....?

 

[Alt+F4]

Sorry if I missed it but could someone post a link to Rudy's statement that he had blood on "the leg of his trousers". It must be in either his prison diary, statements to police or trial transcript...right? Thanks in advance.

 

[LondonJohn]

They make such a big deal about how Raff called the police, and how the police then arrived a few minutes later.

The one act had nothing whatsoever to do with the other, something they neglect to mention.

Are you quite sure "they" neglect to mention it?

In fact, can you even reference a single post where anyone in the "innocent" camp (for want of a better shorthand) has ever claimed that the first police who arrived at the cottage - just before 1.00pm - were responding to Sollecito's 12.55pm call (which, incidentally, was directed to a completely separate police agency)?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I find the "objection" to Rinaldi's measuring to be highly unconvincing and the photoshopping exploit by those seeking to support Amanda tells a story all of its own. It will be interesting to see what happens in the appeal court.

Here are my calculations:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

If you come up with a different result, show me the math.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Have you ever heard of Surface Tension^WP? Look what happens when water flows over a curved surface: http://gutter-hood.com/images/surface-tension-water-glass.jpg

And as I've already stated earlier, there is reason to believe that the bathmat had been moved between the night of the murder and when the police arrived the next day.

I simply don't see the i) amount of blood and ii) evenness of its distribution as appears in the print as consistent with someone who had run their leg under flowing water in order to clean their trouser. There would have been a high volume of water in order to try to get that blood shifted and the dilution effect would never have left that level of print which is much more consistent with the potato-imprint sort of mechanic.

Then the print/bathmat orientation is still wrong. The only person who moved it, if you believe her, is Amanda, but she made no reference to the mat being the wrong way around when she commenced her bathmat shuffle. When I say wrong way I mean with the two narrow ends facing the sink and the bidet which is what's required in order to avoid the "leg-break" 90 degree placement if it was was in a normal position with the long-width way facing the sink (and the bidet behind it). Normal everyday experience shows that the bathmat would be in the position you find it in now.

If it *were* length ways on, for which there is no evidence or testimony from the defendant, which is pretty conclusively terminal for this argument, then who turned it the other way around? Are you saying the attacker themselves swizzled it round? Why would they do that when they would be facing the bidet from the end and the original position of the bathmat is more suited to having feet side by side? *If* all of that happened, then how does the print get where it is - they have to take a large step backwards to make the print at the rear of the mat, with their heel off it, extending their leg all the way back? Or did they pirouette 180 degrees to make it the print at the "front" of the mat? Clearly not.

This is a defence based in faith not in logic or evidence. Nor was it ever raised by the defendant herself. The bathmat is in its logical normal position - the logical normal position Amanda herself put it back in, if you believe her, after the bathmat shuffle. And that's really terminal. It's a scenario you have to work so terribly hard to even stand the chance of sounding vaguely plausible and simply wouldn't fly with a jury. It's what we call a sucking a lemon defence - you can try it, but boy is it going to make a jury pull faces.

 

[Trigood]

No, he went into the bathroom after he killed Meredith to clean himself up, which is why police found splashes of diluted blood in the bidet as well as the print on the mat. That is when he removed his shoe, but he put it back on when he had finished cleaning up. Then he returned to her room, pulled the quilt off her bed, spread it over her body, and sat on the edge of the bed while he went through her purse. That is why police found the knife-blade prints on the top sheet and the purse on the bed, along with a towel. He left the trail of bloody shoe prints when he made his exit from the house, perhaps having stepped in blood when he spread the quilt over the body.

Oh, so you've chosen my second option (which you haven't quoted above), that he inexplicably cleaned blood off his pants (why?) in his bare feet, blood traveled against the laws of physics to the bottoms of his soles, then (after leaving a clear bathroom print), he put his shoes back on, went to back to the bedroom, walked around in her blood, and then walked out knowing he was leaving a clear bloody trail of shoeprints that would identify him? Why, if he was so meticulous about a few blood splashes on his pants (were they designer?) that would not even identify him, did he not give a damn about blood on the soles of his shoes that would clearly identify him to the cops?

Not only are these actions totally inexplicable and ridiculous, but as both SomeAlibi and I have pointed out, the very possibility that this could physically happen (diluted blood smearing itself over the soles of one's feet in enough quantity to leave a coherent bloody print) is impossible. No jury would believe it.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not a "simple" but rather a totally bizarre explanation.

You expect us to believe that Rudy ran out of the house, leaving the bloody shoeprints as they exist from Meredith's bedroom door to the door of the cottage.

Then, he realized his pants were bloody, so he took off his shoes, left them outside (didn't bring them in to clean them? why not?), came back into the cottage barefoot, and went to the bathroom (the one farthest from the door? why?)

Then, he rinsed the blood off his pantlegs (why not just throw the pants away later?), blood ran down his pantlegs and mysteriously got underneath the soles of his feet (laws of physics, anyone? blood will not flow down and then suddenly horizontally to cover the bottom of a foot, certainly not in such thickness and density to form a clear footprint), and then he stepped strategically on the blue bathmat to leave (in your mind) a perfect imprint that could implicate him later.

Hmm. Seems he's solving one so-called "problem" (which doesn't require solution), while creating another worse problem for himself in terms of evidence against himself.

Or do you have someone else in mind for the bloody shoeprint trail that leads out of the cottage? Not a "lone wolf" after all?

Rudy was a pretty dumb murderer, wasn't he? Not only that, he behaved totally inexplicably. Why go back into the house at all?

If he didn't leave the house first, you're expecting us to believe that, after washing blood off his pant legs, for no explicable reason he puts his shoes with blood on the soles back on (why not wash them too, while he's at it?), and then runs out of the house, leaving evidence for all to see and connect him with the murder.

This is the problem the Innocentisti bump up against all the time: They want to selectively look at the evidence, but you can't; it must be taken in its entirety.

Wow! Was that an echo?!

Are you suggesting that Guede would have run out of the cottage barefoot if there was blood on the sole of his shoe? And what the heck do you mean by "why go back into the house at all"? Who's suggesting that Guede left the house then re-entered it?

And why is it "inexplicable" that Guede might want to wash off any blood visible on his clothes, since that might look a bit....erm....suspicious...as he made his way back from the murder scene to his apartment? You also seem to be under the impression that Guede's shoe soles were almost dripping with blood. You obviously don't realise that the bloody prints which Guede's shoes left in the hallway were so faint that the "crack" forensics team spent quite some time trampling over them until somebody finally noticed them. So isn't it entirely possible that Guede was unaware that he was even leaving shoe print evidence in the hallway?

 

[Dan O.]

Point of information: Rudy never did admit to going to the bathroom to clean blood off himself. He said he went to get towels. In his diary he said that he had blood on him as he returned home to change. He says nothing about washing himself or having wet trousers or anything similar.

A simple google search for ["Rudy Guede" "wet trousers"] reveals the statement "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt." purportedly written in his German diary while awaiting extradition.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hello SomeAlibi, a bit OT but how is the transcript coming that you promised to get from PMF?

 

[LondonJohn]

I simply don't see the i) amount of blood and ii) evenness of its distribution as appears in the print as consistent with someone who had run their leg under flowing water in order to clean their trouser. There would have been a high volume of water in order to try to get that blood shifted and the dilution effect would never have left that level of print which is much more consistent with the potato-imprint sort of mechanic.

Then the print/bathmat orientation is still wrong. The only person who moved it, if you believe her, is Amanda, but she made no reference to the mat being the wrong way around when she commenced her bathmat shuffle. When I say wrong way I mean with the two narrow ends facing the sink and the bidet which is what's required in order to avoid the "leg-break" 90 degree placement if it was was in a normal position with the long-width way facing the sink (and the bidet behind it). Normal everyday experience shows that the bathmat would be in the position you find it in now.

If it *were* length ways on, for which there is no evidence or testimony from the defendant, which is pretty conclusively terminal for this argument, then who turned it the other way around? Are you saying the attacker themselves swizzled it round? Why would they do that when they would be facing the bidet from the end and the original position of the bathmat is more suited to having feet side by side? *If* all of that happened, then how does the print get where it is - they have to take a large step backwards to make the print at the rear of the mat, with their heel off it, extending their leg all the way back? Or did they pirouette 180 degrees to make it the print at the "front" of the mat? Clearly not.

This is a defence based in faith not in logic or evidence. Nor was it ever raised by the defendant herself. The bathmat is in its logical normal position - the logical normal position Amanda herself put it back in, if you believe her, after the bathmat shuffle. And that's really terminal. It's a scenario you have to work so terribly hard to even stand the chance of sounding vaguely plausible and simply wouldn't fly with a jury. It's what we call a sucking a lemon defence - you can try it, but boy is it going to make a jury pull faces.

Hey, here's a thought: what if some person washing his trouser leg in the bidet then placing his blood/water foot partially onto the mat, what if.........what if......that person then moved the bathmat before leaving the bathroom? OK, I know it's a crazy, crazy notion, and it's what we call a "half-decent defence". Whereas someone claiming that they know with a high level of certainty where a bath mat was positioned all the time between 8.00pm on November 1st and 1.00pm on November 2nd simply comes across as.......bizarre.

 

[LondonJohn]

A simple google search for ["Rudy Guede" "wet trousers"] reveals the statement "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt." purportedly written in his German diary while awaiting extradition.

Ouch

 

[Alt+F4]

A simple google search for ["Rudy Guede" "wet trousers"] reveals the statement "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt." purportedly written in his German diary while awaiting extradition.

No mention of cleaning up? Well assume for a second that this statement is true. If he was covering up blood on his trousers, it wasn't blood on the bottom leg - a sweatshirt wouldn't cover that up.

If the blood was in a place that could be covered with a sweatshirt then there was no reason to either take off his shoes or use the bidet.

Ouch.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hello SomeAlibi, a bit OT but how is the transcript coming that you promised to get from PMF?

I posted a request and I got the other bit from Piktor. I'm not sure if I've ever seen the 'bridge' between it. Charlie would have the content presumably?

 

[Trigood]

Wow! Was that an echo?!

No. Are you implying some collusion between SA and me? Or that I am a mere insignificant echo of him? You wish!

What you're actually revealing for all and sundry is your incomprehension that two intelligently normal people can come to the same (justified) realization of the absurdity of an argument.

Are you suggesting that Guede would have run out of the cottage barefoot if there was blood on the sole of his shoe? And what the heck do you mean by "why go back into the house at all"? Who's suggesting that Guede left the house then re-entered it?

The sequence of events proposed was unclear. I was merely proposing one of two possibilities. The other is just as unlikely.

And why is it "inexplicable" that Guede might want to wash off any blood visible on his clothes, since that might look a bit....erm....suspicious...as he made his way back from the murder scene to his apartment?

OK, so I see, so it's not at all suspicious to leave bloody footprints and shoeprints at the scene of the crime, but a murderer running from the scene in the full dark would be all concerned about how suspicious were a few bloody drops on his pants, that he could quickly change and discard at home in 10 seconds.

Yeah, that totally makes sense.

You also seem to be under the impression that Guede's shoe soles were almost dripping with blood. You obviously don't realise that the bloody prints which Guede's shoes left in the hallway were so faint that the "crack" forensics team spent quite some time trampling over them until somebody finally noticed them. So isn't it entirely possible that Guede was unaware that he was even leaving shoe print evidence in the hallway?

Asked and answered. Why be so concerned about some blood spatter on his pants (were they expensive Armani or something?), when his shoes were bloody on the bottom and anyone but an imbecile (which Rudy was not) would realize he would be leaving bloody prints (who cares whether they were noticed "at once"; the fact remains they were noticed and measured and determined to be Rudy's size), as well as a bloody footprint in the bathroom that apparently was quite obvious and noticed immediately by the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

Still interested in someone please explaining to me the motivation of the judge and jury to "fit up" a young Italian man who is the son of a prominent and wealthy Italian medic?

You are a defence lawyer, aren't you? Do you think that the jury "fitted up" Barry George in his original trial? Do you think that the jury "fitted up" Stefan Kiszco in his first trial?

Why is it therefore necessary to believe that the judicial panel "fitted up" Sollecito (or Knox) in their first trial to believe that a miscarriage may have occurred? I'm disappointed, to be honest.

 

[SomeAlibi]

No mention of cleaning up? Well assume for a second that this statement is true. If he was covering up blood on his trousers, it wasn't blood on the bottom leg - a sweatshirt wouldn't cover that up.

If the blood was in a place that could be covered with a sweatshirt then there was no reason to either take off his shoes or use the bidet.

Ouch.

It's not an ouch - Alt+F4 asked the right question and even hypothesised did it come from the diary, which it was confirmed it did. Here's the full relevant section:

"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. There were a lot of people in the street, in Piazza Grimana. There were some guys still playing basketball even though it was dark.

I arrived back home, not knowing what to do. I remember having taken off my pants. I changed only those, because of the clothes I was wearing, only the trousers were dirty. I put on the “Pelle Pelle” ones, I remember because many of my friends said they looked like pajamas. I washed my hands, they were full of blood, in the sink, and I left. I just wasn’t able to stay home. It seemed I was seeing blood everywhere. I went to Alex’s house, where, by the way, I already passed, an hour before. I also met Philip."


His hands were still "full of blood" and his trousers dirty. Doesn't sound like someone who had a terribly good or effective wash up to me...

 

[platonov]

OK On the Kevin_Lowe ? wet pants - footprint on bathmat theory.

Lets see if we can reach a conclusion on this.

A. Who thinks it will be put forward by the defence at the appeal ?

B. If its proposed what would you rate are the chances of the court accepting it ?

C On a separate note - what's the Italian for hokey-cokey ?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I simply don't see the i) amount of blood and ii) evenness of its distribution as appears in the print as consistent with someone who had run their leg under flowing water in order to clean their trouser. There would have been a high volume of water in order to try to get that blood shifted and the dilution effect would never have left that level of print which is much more consistent with the potato-imprint sort of mechanic.

Then the print/bathmat orientation is still wrong. The only person who moved it, if you believe her, is Amanda, but she made no reference to the mat being the wrong way around when she commenced her bathmat shuffle. When I say wrong way I mean with the two narrow ends facing the sink and the bidet which is what's required in order to avoid the "leg-break" 90 degree placement if it was was in a normal position with the long-width way facing the sink (and the bidet behind it). Normal everyday experience shows that the bathmat would be in the position you find it in now.

If it *were* length ways on, for which there is no evidence or testimony from the defendant, which is pretty conclusively terminal for this argument, then who turned it the other way around? Are you saying the attacker themselves swizzled it round? Why would they do that when they would be facing the bidet from the end and the original position of the bathmat is more suited to having feet side by side? *If* all of that happened, then how does the print get where it is - they have to take a large step backwards to make the print at the rear of the mat, with their heel off it, extending their leg all the way back? Or did they pirouette 180 degrees to make it the print at the "front" of the mat? Clearly not.

This is a defence based in faith not in logic or evidence. Nor was it ever raised by the defendant herself. The bathmat is in its logical normal position - the logical normal position Amanda herself put it back in, if you believe her, after the bathmat shuffle. And that's really terminal. It's a scenario you have to work so terribly hard to even stand the chance of sounding vaguely plausible and simply wouldn't fly with a jury. It's what we call a sucking a lemon defence - you can try it, but boy is it going to make a jury pull faces.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question but if the print is Rafaelle's and the rest of them were cleaned up, wouldn't we see different luminol evidence in the bathroom. I saw a picture somewhere showing a bloody scene, after being cleaned up, and after the application of luminol and you could see exactly where it had all been wiped up.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sorry if I missed it but could someone post a link to Rudy's statement that he had blood on "the leg of his trousers". It must be in either his prison diary, statements to police or trial transcript...right? Thanks in advance.

Any theory as to how the footprint got on the mat requires one to speculate. Massei's premise is that Raffaele removed his shoes, stepped in Meredith's blood, and walked into the bathroom where he left the print on the mat. Later, he or Amanda cleaned up the footprints leading to the mat.

Certainly that is speculation, and I see several problems with the reasoning.

First, the stain is faded but uniform in appearance, suggesting it was made with bloody water rather than blood that had been stepped in elsewhere. And indeed photos show dried splashes made with bloody water in the basin of the bidet, which Massei makes no attempt to explain.

Second, no bare footprints of any kind were found in the room where Meredith was killed, the source of the blood.

Third, it makes no sense to think the Amanda and/or Raffaele cleaned up bare footprints - very precisely, so as not to disturb Rudy's shoe prints in the same area - but then left this print on the mat in plain sight.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I posted a request and I got the other bit from Piktor. I'm not sure if I've ever seen the 'bridge' between it. Charlie would have the content presumably?

Yes, those are both fragments that are public. Do you remember where have you seen the rest?