Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

The Scott Peterson case is interesting because he was convicted of murder despite the fact that was no physical evidence against him. There were no witnesses that saw him commit the crime yet almost everyone (except his family) believes in his guilt.

I think it's a failed analogy. Was there a Rudy Guede in Scott Peterson's case? Was there another perpetrator who left heaps of obvious evidence? It changes the picture a lot.

 

[Alt+F4]

From Frank's report of the court testimony:

Luca and Paola join Amanda and Raffaele who are waiting in the car. Raffaele: is she dead? Luca: yes. Amanda cries. Luca and Paola also tell them what they heard about how she died.

How did Luca know that Meredith's throat had been slashed when he put no more than his foot in the room, the body was covered and everyone was immediately ordered out of the apartment?

 

[babycondor]

If he was so worried about leaving bloody footprints why did he put those bloody shoes back on, leaving footprints from the bedroom to the front door? It's makes no sense for him to take his shoes off.

I was pondering this puzzle last night while taking a shower. What if Rudy took off his very bloody shoes in the bedroom, carried them to the bathroom, tossed them in the shower, stepped into the shower, hastily rinsed himself and the shoes, stepped out of the shower (leaving the bloody footprint on the bathmat), walked back to the bedroom carrying the shoes and maybe a towel, wiped up a bit with the towel, put the still-wet but slightly less bloody shoes back on, and walked out the front door?

 

[Dan O.]

If I had no idea why my daughter's phone was not being answered I would keep calling her because eventually she would turn on her phone or charge it.

In the 48 minutes between 12:07 and 12:55 why would Amanda think that the phones were off for that entire time?

Do you even own a cell phone yourself? Do you know what a missed call notification is?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Here's 9 reasons why people think they are guilty.

Again the problem is not only that most of those are false and the rest inconsequential, the problem is that we cannot view them in void. We must assess them in the light of the overwhelming evidence against Guede.

The same is with your theory of the phone calls. The idea that making those calls along with all of the morning activity was a part of some complicated and elaborate plan doesn't look very sceptical when confronted with the simple fact that Meredith's phones were off and Amanda knew it.

 

[Dan O.]

How did Luca know that Meredith's throat had been slashed when he put no more than his foot in the room, the body was covered and everyone was immediately ordered out of the apartment?

How did Michele Battistelli know that Meredith's throat had been slashed when he didn't put one foot in the room, the body was covered and everyone was immediately ordered out of the apartment?

Telegraph 06 Feb 2009

When Insp Battistelli ordered the locked door of Miss Kercher's bedroom to be kicked in, he encountered a scene of horror.
"There was blood everywhere, a great deal of it. I told everyone to get out and I did not go in. I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."​

 

[Amazer]

I was pondering this puzzle last night while taking a shower. What if Rudy took off his very bloody shoes in the bedroom, carried them to the bathroom, tossed them in the shower, stepped into the shower, hastily rinsed himself and the shoes, stepped out of the shower (leaving the bloody footprint on the bathmat), walked back to the bedroom carrying the shoes and maybe a towel, wiped up a bit with the towel, put the still-wet but slightly less bloody shoes back on, and walked out the front door?

Why would he do something like that? What's purpose?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I was pondering this puzzle last night while taking a shower. What if Rudy took off his very bloody shoes in the bedroom, carried them to the bathroom, tossed them in the shower, stepped into the shower, hastily rinsed himself and the shoes, stepped out of the shower (leaving the bloody footprint on the bathmat), walked back to the bedroom carrying the shoes and maybe a towel, wiped up a bit with the towel, put the still-wet but slightly less bloody shoes back on, and walked out the front door?

What we know for sure is that noone wiped any prints in the corridor. It would leave obvious traces, and no such evidence were presented. Apart from it, there were bloody shoeprints in the corridor. Did the clean up happen before Rudy left Meredith's room? Does it make sense?

 

[Alt+F4]

I was pondering this puzzle last night while taking a shower. What if Rudy took off his very bloody shoes in the bedroom, carried them to the bathroom, tossed them in the shower, stepped into the shower, hastily rinsed himself and the shoes, stepped out of the shower (leaving the bloody footprint on the bathmat), walked back to the bedroom carrying the shoes and maybe a towel, wiped up a bit with the towel, put the still-wet but slightly less bloody shoes back on, and walked out the front door?

But if he took a shower (even a quick one) there would be no blood on the bottom of his feet when he got out of the shower. Also, there are no bloody naked footprints going from Meredith's room to the bathroom.

 

[Alt+F4]

What we know for sure is that noone wiped any prints in the corridor. It would leave obvious traces, and no such evidence were presented. Apart from it, there were bloody shoeprints in the corridor. Did the clean up happen before Rudy left Meredith's room? Does it make sense?

I think the most logical explanation is that Steve Moore doesn't know what he's talking about. I never believed him when he said that he had access to all the case documents while also saying he had no contact with the defense.

That bloody footprint was probably made by someone stepping on a bloody towel in the bathroom then placing that bloody foot on the bathmat.

Steve Moore was wrong when he said no one could have left that room without blood on the bottom of their shoes. I wonder what else he might be wrong about.

 

[RoseMontague]

I must have missed the posts you had here. I am interested.

Thank you. It may take me a day or two to wrap it up.

 

[Dan O.]

Why would he do something like that? What's purpose?

If you want to know why Rudy did what he did, the only way to find out is to write to him and ask.

babycondor's theory fits with the evidence we have that Rudy was tracking blood on his shoes in the murder room and left several prints on the floor, the pillowcase and possibly the rug. We know from his own statements that he made multiple trips to the bathroom to fetch towels. We can see that at least one of the towels was wet with water and not just blood. And there is a bloody bare footprint on the bathmat which is not incompatible with Rudy's foot.

The only significant difference between babycondor's theory and my own is that I believe rudy could have put the shoes on in the bathroom instead of walking barefoot back into the bedroom.

Can you find any evidence that contradicts these theories?

 

[RoseMontague]

How did Michele Battistelli know that Meredith's throat had been slashed when he didn't put one foot in the room, the body was covered and everyone was immediately ordered out of the apartment?

Telegraph 06 Feb 2009

When Insp Battistelli ordered the locked door of Miss Kercher's bedroom to be kicked in, he encountered a scene of horror.
"There was blood everywhere, a great deal of it. I told everyone to get out and I did not go in. I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."​

I think it is clear that he did go into the room, lift the cover of the blanket to see for himself. Even Massei doesn't give the inspector the nod on this one, Luca states he saw him go in. From the same link earlier provided:

The door goes down, the girls scream and step back followed by the boys. One of the policeman makes sure that everyone stays out and blocks the entrance. The other one goes see Meredith's face.
Famous quote of the day: policeman to agitated Filomena: calm down, it's not that you have a dead one under the couch.
These are the facts coming out form the testimonies.

Then there is the post where Luca and the inspector face off. Luca comes off as much more believable on this.

 

[babycondor]

Meredith's phones were on

Again the problem is not only that most of those are false and the rest inconsequential, the problem is that we cannot view them in void. We must assess them in the light of the overwhelming evidence against Guede.

The same is with your theory of the phone calls. The idea that making those calls along with all of the morning activity was a part of some complicated and elaborate plan doesn't look very sceptical when confronted with the simple fact that Meredith's phones were off and Amanda knew it.

But Meredith's phones were on.
Massei report p. 26:

Filippo Bartolozzi, at the time Manager of the Department of the Communications Police for Umbria, confirmed that on the morning of November 2, 2007 Mrs. Elisabetta Lana had brought the mobile phone with her to the Police office. It was a
[27]
Motorola that she said she had found in the garden of her own home. Using this mobile phone, Dr Bartolozzi had made a call to a number in the Office and had thus been able to identify Filomena Romanelli, resident at 7 Via della Pergola, as the owner of the number of [14] this mobile phone. This check was carried out at 11:38 am...

...the second mobile phone had been found by [Fiammetta] who, in testimony provided at the same hearing, reported that on the morning of November 2, 2007, she was in the garden of her own house around midday when she heard a mobile phone ringing. She took this mobile phone into the house, where it rang again, and in the display field appeared the name of Amanda.

 

[Dan O.]

But if he took a shower (even a quick one) there would be no blood on the bottom of his feet when he got out of the shower. Also, there are no bloody naked footprints going from Meredith's room to the bathroom.

You have an amazing ability to forget everything that has been discussed in this thread. If Rudy stepped into the shower to rinse blood off his lower trowser leg without taking off his pants, the blood/water mix would flow over his foot and that is exactly what we see in the print on the bathmat; a mix of blood and water creating a clear print of the front of the foot and the mat is saturated at the edge where additional bloody water would be flowing off the back cuff of the pants when he steps out of the shower to grab a towel. We also see in some of Rudy's bloody shoe prints additional drips of blood like there is still dripping from the pants cuff.

 

[babycondor]

Why would he do something like that? What's purpose?

I don't know. I don't understand how Rudy's mind works. To me, NOTHING he did makes sense! I'm only proposing this as a possible scenario that accounts for the evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

You have an amazing ability to forget everything that has been discussed in this thread. If Rudy stepped into the shower to rinse blood off his lower trowser leg without taking off his pants, the blood/water mix would flow over his foot and that is exactly what we see in the print on the bathmat; a mix of blood and water creating a clear print of the front of the foot and the mat is saturated at the edge where additional bloody water would be flowing off the back cuff of the pants when he steps out of the shower to grab a towel. We also see in some of Rudy's bloody shoe prints additional drips of blood like there is still dripping from the pants cuff.

I see this theory has now moved from the bidet to the shower. Rudy mentions blood on the upper part of his pants not the lower trouser leg. There doesn't seem to be any reason why he should lie about this point.

 

[Dan O.]

I think the most logical explanation is that Steve Moore doesn't know what he's talking about. I never believed him when he said that he had access to all the case documents while also saying he had no contact with the defense.

I have access to many of the photo's and videos of the case and have never had contact with the defense. How could that be?

That bloody footprint was probably made by someone stepping on a bloody towel in the bathroom then placing that bloody foot on the bathmat.

That doesn't explain how the mat is saturated at the edge.

Steve Moore was wrong when he said no one could have left that room without blood on the bottom of their shoes. I wonder what else he might be wrong about.

Steve More may have been imprecise when he spoke. But I put it to you, how could three people participate in Meredith's murder and two of then leave no bloody footprints? Where were they standing, where did they step?

 

[Dan O.]

I see this theory has now moved from the bidet to the shower. Rudy mentions blood on the upper part of his pants not the lower trouser leg. There doesn't seem to be any reason why he should lie about this point.

Cite?

 

[Mary_H]

I imagine that is in reference to the actual murder, being as I recall initial reports that the actual event would remain a mystery. Now it appears we'll get a graphic representation of various possibilities of what may have occurred, which frankly I could have done without.

I was trying to be ironic when I asked whether he was talking about the film or the trials. I guessed I missed.

The point, as Katody has been illustrating, is that if there is a possible alternate explanation for the murder and you admit don't know what happened, then you don't have enough evidence to take someone to trial, much less to convict. The panel of umpteen-zillion judges who allegedly approved the case for trial was a consensus of the blind leading the blind.

Kercher's statement essentially reveals that as far as he has been informed, the prosecution's case does not hold strong evidence for what happened, therefore, their proceeding with the case and the trials was a matter of personal preference. On the other hand, the prosecutors and Massei themselves have tried to convey to the public at least a semblance of certainty about events. If Kercher actually made the statement, I am betting his lawyers wish he hadn't.

I don't blame him for being pissed. I'm still going to watch it of course, but I sure wish they could have shown some discretion there.

I can't help but note Comodi had to talk Mignini out of showing the rape portion of the computer representation shown to the jury, so I'm betting he'll be watching. One hand for the popcorn...

but gross!