Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

Bath-mat print.

I've never really paid much attention to the bathmat-footprint "controversy", assuming that it it simply didn't really provide any usable data.

However, I finally decided to cast my not inconsiderable eye for detail over it, and what follows seems to me like an excercise in pointing out the blindingly-bleedin'-obvious, as John Cleese might say.

- Below, I've indicated what looks to me like the extent of the actual footprint - the rest of the staining looks like it's from blood or bloody water that soaked directly into the mat from the hem of Guede's bloodied pants (and possibly also ran down his ankle) while he stood there. IOW, the outline of the outside (but not the inside) of his arch is in there, but it's obscured by the wider staining.

- Raffalelle Sollicito is evidently slightly "hammer toed", meaning his toes are somewhat 'clenched' so that only the pad and NOT the first joint of his big toe contacts the ground (it also brings the tips of all his toes close to his fore-foot). This is in obvious contrast to Guede's, whose toe is straight and BOTH joints are firmly planted.

- Guede's reference print shows a distinct cleft between the ball of his big-toe and the rest of his forefoot which is also apparent on the bathmat print. Raffelle does not (outlined).

 

[Justinian2]

I am impressed by the level of knowledge about the case that has been demonstrated in this forum on both sides. People seem pretty entrenched on their positions here and I was wondering if anyone has changed their minds about as to guilt or innocence. And if they did switch, what was the item that turned the tide.
Personally, I was about 90/10 for guilt in the early days ( Jan ’08). Most of my input was from TJMK and PMF. Later in 2008, I started reading Perugia Shock, where I learned about the false HIV results and 3 fried computers. I started questioning the prosecution’s tactics, evidence and logic. By the end of 2008, I was about 50/50 on guilt. I actual trial was an eye-opener and hearing the “other side” has pushed me to 90/10 on innocence.
I would like to if you changed you position, what was the deciding factor. Or possibly, what would it take to change your mind. For me it was the tactics, evidence and logic of the prosecution.

I was leaning 60-40 that Amanda was guilty in the first year. The interrogation techniques caused me to take another look. False confessions and torturous interrogations are the hallmark of false incarcerations. Most of us can be pressured into false confessions. My reasoning then was: if the police used this much pressure in the interrogation, then they probably used sly techniques elsewhere too. The next thing that struck me was the lack of evidence in MK's room. Then the double DNA knife and the footprints fell as reliable evidence. Now I am 100% sure they are innocent. However, to keep an open mind, I keep telling myself that I'm only 99% sure that they are both innocent.

 

[Supernaut]

I too am fed up with these specious references to "convictions" and "courts" in relation to the party in Seattle. And I agree that those who persist in using such nomenclature as part of an attack on Knox's character seem to be quite heavily invested in a certain agenda.

Yep - this individual is really getting quite tiresome, and I've been surprised that so many have let his/her continuous iteration of the words "arrest", "charges", "court" and "conviction" slide - not to mention the outright lie about having read the "court proceedings" (or something to that effect) online.

Just extraordinary dishonesty.

No "arrest", no "charges", no "court appearence", no "conviction", just a 'citation', a ticket with a fixed penalty fine, no more or less serious than a speeding ticket.

ANd BTW, I heard that Amanda immediately went to speak to the cop on her own when he turned up then and willingly accepted complete responsibilty, despite the fact that no-one could honestly say she alone should have been held personally responsible for the actions of everyone at a student party.

 

[Withnail1969]

..

 

[Withnail1969]

Yep - this individual is really getting quite tiresome, and I've been surprised that so many have let his/her continuous iteration of the words "arrest", "charges", "court" and "conviction" slide - not to mention the outright lie about having read the "court proceedings" (or something to that effect) online.

Just extraordinary dishonesty.

No "arrest", no "charges", no "court appearence", no "conviction", just a 'citation', a ticket with a fixed penalty fine, no more or less serious than a speeding ticket.

ANd BTW, I heard that Amanda immediately went to speak to the cop on her own when he turned up then and willingly accepted complete responsibilty, despite the fact that no-one could honestly say she alone should have been held personally responsible for the actions of everyone at a student party.

Amanada held a party which got a bit noisy, and some people outside the party apparently threw some rocks. No windows were broken or property damaged. Amanda had no idea this was happening, but took the rap anyway as a resident of the house.

It should be obvious to anyone that this was only the start of Amanda's deadly rampage of crime. Only the blood of an innocent girl would satisfy her!

 

[Justinian2]

The 1st thing that made me think Amanda was innocent even when the evidence was stacked against her was what she was saying. She was saying the same things that I was saying when the police made trumped up charges against me once. The charges against me only threatened to put me in jail for 2 years. I quickly had the case dismissed. I don't want to say what these words are as I don't want the guilty to fake innocence.

Murder in Italy really convinced me. The Massei report just confirmed the truth of what "Friends of Amanda", "Murder in Italy" and CNN were saying

 

[RoseMontague]

I've never really paid much attention to the bathmat-footprint "controversy", assuming that it it simply didn't really provide any usable data.

However, I finally decided to cast my not inconsiderable eye for detail over it, and what follows seems to me like an excercise in pointing out the blindingly-bleedin'-obvious, as John Cleese might say.

- Below, I've indicated what looks to me like the extent of the actual footprint - the rest of the staining looks like it's from blood or bloody water that soaked directly into the mat from the hem of Guede's bloodied pants (and possibly also ran down his ankle) while he stood there. IOW, the outline of the outside (but not the inside) of his arch is in there, but it's obscured by the wider staining.

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/xkziuf.jpg[/qimg]

- Raffalelle Sollicito is evidently slightly "hammer toed", meaning his toes are somewhat 'clenched' so that only the pad and NOT the first joint of his big toe contacts the ground (it also brings the tips of all his toes close to his fore-foot). This is in obvious contrast to Guede's, whose toe is straight and BOTH joints are firmly planted.

- Guede's reference print shows a distinct cleft between the ball of his big-toe and the rest of his forefoot which is also apparent on the bathmat print. Raffelle does not (outlined).

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/2yzeskl.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for pointing this out. It does seem obvious that at the very least the footprint looks more like Guede's than Raffaele's.

 

[daydreamer]

Now I am 100% sure they are innocent. However, to keep an open mind, I keep telling myself that I'm only 99% sure that they are both innocent.

I agree. I wonder if anyone has gone the "innocent to guilty" route (with the exception of the court judges, I assume).

 

[Withnail1969]

Thanks for pointing this out. It does seem obvious that at the very least the footprint looks more like Guede's than Raffaele's.

Without having to trawl through previous posts, can anyone tell me what are Yummi's/Machiavelli's claimed credentials for drawing Microsoft Paint outlines around footprints and saying they belong to one person or another?

Thanks.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes. But the in the Rinaldi pictures the reference width of Solelcito's print is 95 millimeters, the bathmat has a reference width of 99 mm, that may become possible 96-97 if the bathmat print is rotated 2-4 degrees colckwise, but not less. The scale in your drawing cannot be correct, since you have a bathmat print "narrower" than Sollecito's print while in fact it is "wider" in the reference area. As far as I can see you have demonstrated that the bathmat print doesn't belong to a yeti.

Thanks for the comment Machiavelli,
Actually Rinaldi's pdf gives the Sollecito's width as 99 mm, not 95 mm as you claim. The blue arrow on the bathmat is also 99 mm long. In fact I used the arrows for bringing the pictures to scale. As they are presented in Rinaldi's pdf there's around 1% difference when compared pixel to pixel ( Both reference prints are a tiny bit bigger then the bathmat ).

Of course my overlays are scaled assuming that Rinaldi's measurements are correct.

 

[Draca]

Meredith's room by Dec 18th

I am dismayed by the change in appearance of Meredith's room between November 2nd and the middle of December. Was all of the tossing about of stuff documented on video? If not, how do we know whether or not it was done in accordance with guidelines about gloves, etc.?

I'm very disturbed by the photos of Meredith's room from Dec 18th as well.

For example, in this photo you can see a blue hot water bottle near the wardrobe. It is found in a great deal of blood and is near where Meredith's head was found resting when they found her body.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1588


In this photo that same water bottle has been pushed to the outside edge of the pile of clothes and shoes that have been tossed on and besides the bed. What else has the blood from the the water bottle come in contact with?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=163680190323127&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

Also, if you look at the photo above you can see a pair of red and white shoes right below a brown cloth. Meredith's Pumas thrown in with everything else? The same shoes she was wearing when she was attacked? They didn't have large amounts of blood on them but they did have some spots.

It makes me wonder what else is in that pile? Her jeans? long sleeved t-shirt? Who knows really.

1. Meredith light blue jacket with sleeves turned inside out and drenched and with blood was retrieved on Dec 18th. It had been left on the desk.

2. Meredith's brown purse with blood on it was left behind.

3. Bra clasp was left also.


Wouldn't ALL of the clothing worn by the victim the night she was killed be tagged and examined? Bloody marks on a purse would seem like a priority item.

Why the need to throw everything in a pile together? Especially items that had blood on them.

An average person can easily determine that the jacket that was PULLED off of the victim and the purse with bloody prints on it should be carefully tagged and tested immediately. This looks extremely bad for the forensic teams competence. If this forensics team was being brought to trial to be judged on the job they did in this case they would be convicted.

 

[Chris C]

The theory has been posited elsewhere that Rudy Guede could not possibly have left the bloody barefoot print in the bathroom. This is because he was wearing shoes during the actual murder in Meredith's room.

Of course, if someone is wearing shoes, it is impossible for that person to take off their shoes. If someone was wearing shoes in one room, then they must have been wearing shoes in another.

Whoever left the footprint can't have been Rudy Guede because Rudy was wearing shoes. Therefore the footprint must be Rafaelle Sollecito's. But he must have arrived at the cottage barefoot, because it wouldn't have been possible for him to take his shoes off at the cottage.

Where is the evidence that Sollecito stepped in blood in Meredith's room? There isn't even evidence in the blood pool that anyone other than Rudy stepped in Meredith's blood. Since they didn't clean up the blood pool, they didn't step in meredith's blood. However, if someone was to wrestle someone to the ground and stab them 3 times they would be covered in blood. They would probably leave bloody handprints. Then they would probably go wash up afterwards. IF you want people to believe that Knox/Sollecito left all that blood in the bathroom, then where did Rudy clean up at. Now you have to come up with a reason for Sollecito to have his shoes off. If Guede can't take his expensive shoes off to wash blood off his body then what makes anyone think Sollecito has to take his shoes off to wash blood off his body.

 

[Withnail1969]

I'm very disturbed by the photos of Meredith's room from Dec 18th as well.

For example, in this photo you can see a blue hot water bottle near the wardrobe. It is found in a great deal of blood and is near wear Meredith's head was found resting when they found her body.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1588


In this photo that same water bottle has been pushed to the outside edge of the pile of clothes and shoes that have been tossed on and besides the bed. What else has the blood from the the water bottle come in contact with?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=163680190323127&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

Also, if you look at the photo above you can see a pair of red and white shoes right below a brown cloth. Meredith's Pumas thrown in with everything else? The same shoes she was wearing when she was attacked? They didn't have large amounts of blood on them but they did have some spots.

It makes me wonder what else is in that pile? Her jeans? long sleeved t-shirt? Who knows really.

1. Meredith light blue jacket with sleeves turned inside out and drenched and with blood was retrieved on Dec 18th. It had been left on the desk.

2. Meredith's brown purse with blood on it was left behind.

3. Bra clasp was left also.


Wouldn't ALL of the clothing worn by the victim the night she was killed be tagged and examined? Bloody marks on a purse would seem like a priority item.

Why the need to throw everything in a pile together? Especially items that had blood on them.

An average person can easily determine that the jacket that was PULLED off of the victim and the purse with bloody prints on it should be carefully tagged and tested immediately. This looks extremely bad for the forensic teams competence. If this forensics team was being brought to trial to be judged on the job they did in this case they would be convicted.

This stuff needed to be tagged, bagged, and kept in a sterile hygienic environment, not left rotting in chaos in the uncleaned murder room for months.

If nothing else, it looks horribly disrespectful to the murder victim. These cops are clowns.

 

[Withnail1969]

Where is the evidence that Sollecito stepped in blood in Meredith's room? There isn't even evidence in the blood pool that anyone other than Rudy stepped in Meredith's blood. Since they didn't clean up the blood pool, they didn't step in meredith's blood. However, if someone was to wrestle someone to the ground and stab them 3 times they would be covered in blood. They would probably leave bloody handprints. Then they would probably go wash up afterwards. IF you want people to believe that Knox/Sollecito left all that blood in the bathroom, then where did Rudy clean up at.

If you didn't realise, I was being satirical.

 

[Chris C]

I am impressed by the level of knowledge about the case that has been demonstrated in this forum on both sides. People seem pretty entrenched on their positions here and I was wondering if anyone has changed their minds about as to guilt or innocence. And if they did switch, what was the item that turned the tide.
Personally, I was about 90/10 for guilt in the early days ( Jan ’08). Most of my input was from TJMK and PMF. Later in 2008, I started reading Perugia Shock, where I learned about the false HIV results and 3 fried computers. I started questioning the prosecution’s tactics, evidence and logic. By the end of 2008, I was about 50/50 on guilt. I actual trial was an eye-opener and hearing the “other side” has pushed me to 90/10 on innocence.
I would like to if you changed you position, what was the deciding factor. Or possibly, what would it take to change your mind. For me it was the tactics, evidence and logic of the prosecution.

Stomach contents. When I learned that the coroner had a different ToD than the prosecution was using. I started looking closer. Thats when you start to see all the other manipulated evidence.

 

[Chris C]

If you didn't realise, I was being satirical.

Wasn't for sure.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The photos you are using are not automatically generated by a crimescope equipment, their outline was manually ehnanced by the forensic team.

What is your source for this?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Also, if you look at the photo above you can see a pair of red and white shoes right below a brown cloth. Meredith's Pumas thrown in with everything else? The same shoes she was wearing when she was attacked? They didn't have large amounts of blood on them but they did have some spots.

It makes me wonder what else is in that pile? Her jeans? long sleeved t-shirt? Who knows really.

You have a knack for picking up on significant details. I am in the process of editing a detailed article by an expert who has examined the photos in their native resolution. "What else is in the pile" includes the bloody boots next to the hot water bottle, which were tossed under the bed along with other footwear, with the result that they left bloodstains under the bed, which the police later thought were connected to the crime.

Someone also dragged the blue sweatshirt across the floor, from the spot where it was found next to Meredith's head, to the spot where it was later recovered by the desk, and in doing so, they left a trail of blood streaks on the floor.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am impressed by the level of knowledge about the case that has been demonstrated in this forum on both sides. People seem pretty entrenched on their positions here and I was wondering if anyone has changed their minds about as to guilt or innocence. And if they did switch, what was the item that turned the tide.
Personally, I was about 90/10 for guilt in the early days ( Jan ’08). Most of my input was from TJMK and PMF. Later in 2008, I started reading Perugia Shock, where I learned about the false HIV results and 3 fried computers. I started questioning the prosecution’s tactics, evidence and logic. By the end of 2008, I was about 50/50 on guilt. I actual trial was an eye-opener and hearing the “other side” has pushed me to 90/10 on innocence.
I would like to if you changed you position, what was the deciding factor. Or possibly, what would it take to change your mind. For me it was the tactics, evidence and logic of the prosecution.

My path was like the voltage curve on a car battery that is almost dead to start with, because I have done enough reading to view these cases with skepticism. But I also tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt, because usually they get it right. So, in November 2007, I was 60-40 for thinking Amanda was present when it happened and knew something. I figured they were all a bunch of druggies leading a perilous lifestyle.

When they replaced Lumumba with Guede, I went to 60-40 for innocence. once I realized that Amanda was not a druggie, had a clean record, and was well-regarded by her peers and teachers in Seattle, I went to 99-1 for innocence. Then I read Candace Dempsey's interview with Doug Preston, which confirmed every suspicion I had about the case, and I became fully convinced that Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent. That was late March 2008. Since then I have gotten extensively involved in the case, I have acquired and studied the evidence, and I have met Amanda. It all confirms my belief that the case is a travesty.

 

[LondonJohn]

This stuff needed to be tagged, bagged, and kept in a sterile hygienic environment, not left rotting in chaos in the uncleaned murder room for months.

If nothing else, it looks horribly disrespectful to the murder victim. These cops are clowns.

I'm sure that a "professional defence attorney" would readily tell you that this is entirely normal practice in a murder investigation.....