Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

No such evidence exists in the murder room, so she doesn't have to explain it. My point is that the bathmat shuffle doesn't explain luminol footprints, whereas stepping on the mat and walking to her room might, if her thinking had been guided by those considerations.

No, CW the implication in you post was quite clear, that if she was inventing stuff she would concentrate on or be more worried about the 'murder room'
Although for the sake of clarity - my response should have contained the word 'potential' ,as in 'her potential presence in blood in the murder room'.

Your further point in this post doesn't make sense - adding the shuffle can only help her case as regards possible evidence whether it be cleaning or blood evidence etc - it doesn't preclude her also walking without the mat, obviously.

Nor have you responded on the development of the story OR the loss of 'revulsion' issue - surely you can see a jury might find the latter strange.
If not then .....

.

 

[Kaosium]

There was no need to destroy something that never existed in the first place.

Interviews with witnesses are NOT recorded, and she was a witness at this point, and thus no such tape ever existed.

End of story.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think I will go on being skeptical of their trying to pretend they weren't taping this 'witness.' At the very least they had to be taping the overnight session on Nov 5/6. At that point she obviously wasn't a 'witness' anymore, whatever they might have tried to say afterward, which is curious in and of itself. They had a crew of at least twelve interrogating her, with Raffaele in another room, and they'd been wiretapping her, and according to the only other information we have, they were trying to get her to admit to being at the scene of a crime, which means they obviously 'suspected' her of something they'd eventually arrest her for.

They had a girl whose Italian was hardly fluent, you'd think they'd have had to audiotape it simply to be sure later of what they had been told. They expected her to sign this 'confession' or 'accusation' and must have known that without a lawyer and the language difficulties themselves adding to the uncertainty, any such 'confession' would get thrown out without rigorous evidence (such as videotape) that it actually occurred, like in fact it actually was. In fact, I find it quite a bit creepier that they would set up an interrogation session like that without recording it.

I'm afraid considering the circumstances their trying to say they 'forgot' to tape the session is simply not credible. I've also seen some say that the tapes were 'erased' and if that is true, then I think we should look to who destroyed those tapes, and why. Since this session has been used to pile on two more charges which are going through the courts, I believe it quite germane to this ongoing ordeal to ask questions about why they ever thought they could get away with producing such a lame response about such an important part of the charges against her.

I find it curious you are so adamantly opposed. Don't you want to know more about the 'bathmat boogie?'

 

[Mary_H]

No, CW the implication in you post was quite clear, that if she was inventing stuff she would concentrate on or be more worried about the 'murder room'
Although for the sake of clarity - my response should have contained the word 'potential' ,as in 'her potential presence in blood in the murder room'.

Your further point in this post doesn't make sense - adding the shuffle can only help her case as regards possible evidence whether it be cleaning or blood evidence etc - it doesn't preclude her also walking without the mat, obviously.

Nor have you responded on the development of the story OR the loss of 'revulsion' issue - surely you can see a jury might find the latter strange.
If not then .....

.

When you've stepped out of the shower and there is no towel, you'll use what's available. I would call it more an "ick factor" than a "revulsion issue."

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

3) If the other footprints in the "series" of prints between Meredith's room and the small bathroom had indeed been cleaned up, there would almost certainly have been some evidence of such a clean-up. However, the floor in Meredith's room, the hallway and the small bathroom showed absolutely no sign of a clean-up. There was no dilute blood in the grouting ridges of the tiles, for example. And the luminol tests did not reveal any smearing or wiping of blood having taken place.

And this is not true. Meredith's room does show a very large portion of floor apparently smeared and wiped in a solution of diluted blood.
In Meredith's room also three towels were present, soaked with blood, one of which almost entirely.

Whatever the precise dinamic is, my opinion is:
1) In no way the blood stains on the bahtman could have been produced wihtout producing at the same time a significant set of stains and drops on the bathroom floor.
2) In no way the stains on the bathroom floor could have disappeared accidentally in a later moment, like by dragging the bathmat.
3) The cleanup in the bathroom areas is also shown by a 26 centimetre smearing on the bathroom door, residual of a wiping.
4) The bloody prints and on the bathmat are anyway are not produced in loco, not directly on the bathmat, not without producing some kind of trail of traces from anywhere: the person who produced it necessarilly stepped somewhere other than the bathmat.

 

[platonov]

Nor indeed is it apparent

Originally Posted by RWVBWL

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

Thanks for sharing your story, RWVBWL. I think the lesson you took from it (last line of last article) shows what a humble person you are, which always comes across in your posts, too.

I have to admit I got a giggle out of the fact that she took the Hawaiian vacation anyway.

I don't think the people in the RCC [no Mary H, not your lot ] or similar organizations would be so happy with the moral/lesson of the story (stories) - or similar tales that certain tabloids like to push - that because some [a tiny minority] of rape/sexual violence allegations are false or unproven therefore all are suspect.

Nor indeed is it apparent how this 'story' has any relevance to this murder case.

You [RWVBWL] surely cant be calling MK a liar - she is dead after all & in no position to make any accusations.

So what is the relevance ??

.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think the people in the RCC [no Mary H, not your lot ] or similar organizations would be so happy with the moral/lesson of the story (stories) - or similar tales that certain tabloids like to push - that because some [a tiny minority] of rape/sexual violence allegations are false or unfounded therefore all are.

Nor indeed is it apparent how this 'story' has any relevance to this murder case.

You surely cant be calling MK a liar - she is dead after all & in no position to make any accusations.

So what is the relevance ??

.

For someone who is always insisting his posts (most of which can be described as abstract, at best) clearly convey the essence of his message, your current post is a bit nervy. RWVBWL was making a point similar to the one Kaosium has been exploring, which is, given the evidence, can anyone explain what happened in Meredith's room to the extent that it is actually even slightly believable that all three defendants participated in the crime?

RWVBWL:
I ask this for it was describing, in very intimate detail what had happened between myself and my "friend", while in her bed,
in my own court testimony that then helped me to clear my name.

What exactly did Rudy Guede do in that bedroom?

IF by any chance Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were there too, what were they doing?
Sitting there watching as Rudy Guede climaxed?

Why do you want to know if it's relevant? Are you going to report it if it isn't?

 

[christianahannah]

And this is not true. Meredith's room does show a very large portion of floor apparently smeared and wiped in a solution of diluted blood.
In Meredith's room also three towels were present, soaked with blood, one of which almost entirely.

Whatever the precise dinamic is, my opinion is:
1) In no way the blood stains on the bahtman could have been produced wihtout producing at the same time a significant set of stains and drops on the bathroom floor.
2) In no way the stains on the bathroom floor could have disappeared accidentally in a later moment, like by dragging the bathmat.
3) The cleanup in the bathroom areas is also shown by a 26 centimetre smearing on the bathroom door, residual of a wiping.
4) The bloody prints and on the bathmat are anyway are not produced in loco, not directly on the bathmat, not without producing some kind of trail of traces from anywhere: the person who produced it necessarilly stepped somewhere other than the bathmat.

Do you know if the bathmat had a rubber backing or was it completely terrycloth material?

I had asked a question in a prior post and wonder if you have an answer - why is it that luminol was not applied in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And this is not true. Meredith's room does show a very large portion of floor apparently smeared and wiped in a solution of diluted blood.
In Meredith's room also three towels were present, soaked with blood, one of which almost entirely.

Whatever the precise dinamic is, my opinion is:
1) In no way the blood stains on the bahtman could have been produced wihtout producing at the same time a significant set of stains and drops on the bathroom floor.

You are entitled to state your opinion, however unless you back up your mere statement of opinion with something more there is absolutely no reason for anyone to share your opinion. Such statements contribute nothing to the discussion.

2) In no way the stains on the bathroom floor could have disappeared accidentally in a later moment, like by dragging the bathmat.

As above.

3) The cleanup in the bathroom areas is also shown by a 26 centimetre smearing on the bathroom door, residual of a wiping.

What evidence rules out the possibility that any such smearing was caused by Rudy Guede?

Armchair-psychological hypothesising of the form "Well I don't reckon he would have, because I reckon he was all like this" is not evidence.

4) The bloody prints and on the bathmat are anyway are not produced in loco, not directly on the bathmat, not without producing some kind of trail of traces from anywhere: the person who produced it necessarilly stepped somewhere other than the bathmat.

I don't think you can possibly have missed the hypothesis that Rudy had blood on his leg (as stated in his own statement to police), walked to the bathroom, rinsed his leg in the shower and then put his foot down. This would produce a print on the bathmat without producing a trail to that point.

It's tiresome to whack these moles down again. Please try harder to be part of an ongoing discussion that moves forward, instead of dragging us backwards to restate old ideas.

 

[Fine]

And this is not true. Meredith's room does show a very large portion of floor apparently smeared and wiped in a solution of diluted blood. In Meredith's room also three towels were present, soaked with blood, one of which almost entirely.

Whatever the precise dinamic is, my opinion is:
1) In no way the blood stains on the bahtman could have been produced wihtout producing at the same time a significant set of stains and drops on the bathroom floor.
2) In no way the stains on the bathroom floor could have disappeared accidentally in a later moment, like by dragging the bathmat.
3) The cleanup in the bathroom areas is also shown by a 26 centimetre smearing on the bathroom door, residual of a wiping.
4) The bloody prints and on the bathmat are anyway are not produced in loco, not directly on the bathmat, not without producing some kind of trail of traces from anywhere: the person who produced it necessarilly stepped somewhere other than the bathmat.

___________________

Machiavelli,

And Barbie also mentions "smears" on the floor of Meredith's room (Angel Face, pages 168, 168). Could you post a photograph illustrating where you see the smears?

///

 

[Kaosium]

I don't think the people in the RCC [no Mary H, not your lot ] or similar organizations would be so happy with the moral/lesson of the story (stories) - or similar tales that certain tabloids like to push - that because some [a tiny minority] of rape/sexual violence allegations are false or unproven therefore all are suspect.

Nor indeed is it apparent how this 'story' has any relevance to this murder case.

You [RWVBWL] surely cant be calling MK a liar - she is dead after all & in no position to make any accusations.

So what is the relevance ??

.

His point was that having gone through a court case about a sexual assault, he knows that everything germane to it is considered very carefully. Having to have had to provide a blow-by-blow description of what occurred that night, he finds it intensely curious as to why something that appears to be a semen stain at the site of a sexual assault appeared to be of little interest to the Perugian police.

That's what I got out of it at any rate, and I think he made a good point.

 

[Kaosium]

No Kaosium I'm afraid you are confusing different interrogations yet again.
.

Platonov, the next time you don't quite understand why I said what I did, imagine me with my tongue firmly in cheek.

 

[platonov]

Poes law

Platonov, the next time you don't quite understand why I said what I did, imagine me with my tongue firmly in cheek.

But how is one to tell the difference

It's OK - no answer required.

The brevity is a giveaway

.

 

[platonov]

<snip>



Why do you want to know if it's relevant? Are you going to report it if it isn't?

Mary H

I merely asked what the relevance* was - the Q could hardly be simpler.
You want to know why I ask ? why the defensiveness: OT is OT.

And why should I report this - reporting what one considers irrelevant [or indeed anything else] on the internet seems a futile exercise.

* Of the repeated (at least thrice now) claims of a false rape allegation.

.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you know if the bathmat had a rubber backing or was it completely terrycloth material?

I had asked a question in a prior post and wonder if you have an answer - why is it that luminol was not applied in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom?

A rubber backed bath mat would have been a smart choice for a bathroom with a slippery tile floor. However, there are a number of indications that this mat wasn't rubber backed: Amanda used that bathroom for the last two months and would have known if the mad didn't slip once placed on the floor. The prosecution has the mat and could have easily shot down the bath mat boogie story with a demonstration if what Amanda claimed wasn't possible. Photographs taken by ILE on the first day or two show that the bathmat was getting moved even when ILE was (or should have been) trying not to disturb the evidence.


I believe ILE flopped royally when they sprayed the bathroom and turned the whole room pink without uncovering any evidence. They wouldn't want to rub their own noses in that error more by returning to that same room with the luminol.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you know if the bathmat had a rubber backing or was it completely terrycloth material?

I had asked a question in a prior post and wonder if you have an answer - why is it that luminol was not applied in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom?

No rubber backing...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bathmat_folded.jpg

 

[Dan O.]

When Amanda took the bathmat for a tour of the cottage, there is no particular reason that she would have returned it exactly where it was the night before. She could have even flipped it around from the way it was. For the benefit of those that have difficulty visualizing, here is one position that the mat could have been in before it was moved:

Note how someone stepping out of the shower could have planted the ball of their right foot where the stain is without putting the heal down and without stepping anywhere else on the floor with the bloody foot. Blood and water flowing off the leg would saturate the back edge of the stain out the the edge of the mat accounting for the stain that we see.

Someone walking into the bathroom with a bloody trowser leg and clean shoes would not leave tracks. The shoe can be removed to step in the shower to rinse the leg. after stepping out onto the mat, the trowser leg would then be patted dry with the towel and the shoe and sock put back on. He can then return to the murder room again without leaving tracks.

 

[Chris C]

When Amanda took the bathmat for a tour of the cottage, there is no particular reason that she would have returned it exactly where it was the night before. She could have even flipped it around from the way it was. For the benefit of those that have difficulty visualizing, here is one position that the mat could have been in before it was moved:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4050[/qimg]

Note how someone stepping out of the shower could have planted the ball of their right foot where the stain is without putting the heal down and without stepping anywhere else on the floor with the bloody foot. Blood and water flowing off the leg would saturate the back edge of the stain out the the edge of the mat accounting for the stain that we see.

Someone walking into the bathroom with a bloody trowser leg and clean shoes would not leave tracks. The shoe can be removed to step in the shower to rinse the leg. after stepping out onto the mat, the trowser leg would then be patted dry with the towel and the shoe and sock put back on. He can then return to the murder room again without leaving tracks.

Then they could get dressed, take the towels they dried off with and toss them with the body. Rummage through the purse, step in some blood, grab some phones, lock the door on the way out of the room and leave.

 

[Chris C]

Why would raffaele refuse to testify

1)Because his lawyers decided on that tactic
2)He was aware that mignini would analise his evidence,which would like in the case of Amanda despite being a mockary of jusdice lead to more charges

Actually from what Italians have told me, that if a person testify's they believe they are guilty. Thats of course their opinion, not mine. I would venture to say most Americans feel if someone doesn't testify they are guilty. Thats an opinion also.

 

[Chris C]

It was my understanding that the interviews with both Filomena and Laura were recorded.

I believe all the interviews where recorded except that 1 time with Sollecito and Knox. I dont know about Patricks. I also believe the reason mignini gave for Knox's and Sollecito's interrogation not being recorded was he was at home.

 

[Chris C]

I, for one never doubted that story.
First, because going out of the shower and forgetting the towel happened to me personally more than a few times - and bathmat boogie is exactly what I did in such a situation.
Second, contriving such a lie when more sensible alternatives are at hand makes no sense at all.
Third, it is in spirit of Amanda's. She is open about such details like romantically cleaning the ears, dildos, borrowing condoms etc. oblivious to the effect she makes. Bare bathmat shuffling fits quite well.

Actually, Guede said he took the towels from that bathroom to meredith's room to stop the bleeding. The towels where found with the body. So its very easy to assume that when Knox jumped in the shower she would expect towels to be in the bathroom.