Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

And here I was thinking he was just putting up a wall of text. Which paragraph did you find especially convincing, griffinmill?

Which paragraph wasn't? I've read Dan O's theory of how Guede danced on air to the bathroom, selectively cleaned himself with erratic traces, and then dashed out of the cottage leaving footprints incompatible with locking the door.

It never made sense, was always fantasist conspiracy theory, and Mach effectively debunked all its central points. But I'm sure you and the 15 other people here will disagree. So it goes.

 

[Desert Fox]

Despite this, Machiavelli argues the opposite - that they can be seen.

On top of this, Machiavelli will not discuss a judge named De Nunzio, who is the president of the Appeal's Court level of Perugia. Machiavellis some time ago accused De Nunzio of being a criminal, of being involved in a criminal conspiracy with Judge Hellmann to acquit Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in 2011.

I am kind of curious, did Mach give a motivation for them acquitting Amanda and Raff? If it is criminal, there has to be a pretty interesting reason.

I understand the reasoning for the reverse:
1. Politically better to look tough on crime.
2. Unwilling to admit that you or the police make a mistake
3. Trying to close the book and make a case go away.

 

[Dan O.]

The Italian media might be an earlier source which Rudy would more likely have access to (9 November 2007):
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_09/sarzanini_perugia.shtml

Your source says nothing about the towels being bloody. According to Mach, Rudy would have read something in the press so he would come up with the towell that got compleatly saturated with blood and he had to go fetch another.

My link doesn't work either but I left a reward for those that follow my instructions and "check it out" ...

 

[kwill]

Which paragraph wasn't?

Oh, come on! I asked you first & there is such a big selection to choose from. Just pick one . . . your favorite bit from Mach's wall of text.

 

[Bill Williams]

Which paragraph wasn't? I've read Dan O's theory of how Guede danced on air to the bathroom, selectively cleaned himself with erratic traces, and then dashed out of the cottage leaving footprints incompatible with locking the door.

It never made sense, was always fantasist conspiracy theory, and Mach effectively debunked all its central points. But I'm sure you and the 15 other people here will disagree. So it goes.

Yup.

Still, when Massei includes in his report not one, but two experts who testified that photographs could not pick up any striation (groove) on the blade, and one of those was Stefanoni herself....

You have to hand it to Machiavelli, when he says, "The striations are there. You can see them in photographs."

 

[Bill Williams]

I am kind of curious, did Mach give a motivation for them acquitting Amanda and Raff? If it is criminal, there has to be a pretty interesting reason.

I understand the reasoning for the reverse:
1. Politically better to look tough on crime.
2. Unwilling to admit that you or the police make a mistake
3. Trying to close the book and make a case go away.

"Motivation"? I don't really know if it counts as a "motivation", but Machiavelli has always linked the Masons with this conspiracy to pervert Italian law. Machiavelli says he knows the amount of Euros it took to buy off Judge Hellmann, and the motivation acc. to Mach. is that Hellmann likes fast cars and is generally a criminal.

I apologize to Machiavelli, though, because unless I read this part wrong, Mach. seems to be indicating that he, himself, is being investigated.

"But you perfectly know this cannot be a matter of forum discussion, since this is matter of investigation."

 

[Dan O.]

Different times. Once in the murder room and once, more diluted, from washing off his pants (trousers).

ETA: the bathroom blood would have been on the bottom of his feet, not his shoes.

More than that. The shoe prints on the pillow and in the hall were all made with the same shoe, even the ones Mach claims were made by Amanda. But they were not made in the same series. As I recall, the heal of the shoe is leaving the prints on the pillow while it is the front of the shoe leaving the prints that lead out her door and down the hall.


We must have gotten one of the really old Mach's back because this one seems to have missed the whole series where I analized the individual prints from the trail from marker 5 in Meredith's room to the last known print at marker H in the livingroom. This was a key discovery... (oops, there I go leaving hints again)

 

[anglolawyer]

snip


The lamp was obviously brought inside the room by someone who needed some light, to do something in the room, such as: explore some area of the room to see if there is some kind of potential piece of evidence left on the floor, like for example to collect the "second" knife or another incriminating object, or to search inside the pockets of Meredith's jeans in order to remove her cell phones, anyway to perform some activity of alteration of the scene. Meredith had a similar lamp but it was out of reach, because it was on the floor on the other side of Meredith's body, behind a blood covered area, and it would be risky to try to use it.

So it was OK to sit on the bed going through her handbag, which would entail traversing this terrible barrier of yours (you need a photograph to back this up as the blood was almost all on the other side of the room and the area beside the bed was relatively blood-free with the duvet laid on top of it (by Guede whose footprints in her blood suggest we wasn't too fussed about walking in it)).

Can you tell us where to find this insight in Massei, Nencini or anywhere in the prosecution case, together with the oral evidence confirming the lamp was already there when the door was busted open? Don't bother. Nowhere and nothing are the answers.

Please let's avoid comments of this level. Sollecito's profile was there. We should be beyond this.

You mean on the clasp? How do we know? Stefanoni destroyed the evidence so it's only her word. That wouldn't be good enough even if she weren't a negligent scientist and a proven liar.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It is worth working on a theory that has Rudy making all endeavours to keep all blood in the bedroom, planning to lock her door behind him. Laying towels to walk on and gathering behind him on the way back to the bedroom might cover some curious evidence?

It's not that complicated. Ampulla was on the right track when she pointed out that Guede was cleaning himself rather than the crime scene. In doing so, he removed a shoe and put his foot down on the rug. The details are a matter of conjecture, but no torrent of verbiage can obscure what is shown in the crime scene photos.

I would like to see a detailed theory that links the luminol traces to the murder. That is a great deal less straightforward.

 

[anglolawyer]

The guy simply hasn't been paying attention. All of his attacks are against straw men. He basically doesn't understand the scenareo that I have been presenting for years and hasn't really done his homework.

I will have to search the Italian media archives for the earliest news on the towels. That one caught me off guard and I don't find anything in a quick search in English.

ETA: I found this reference to towels in the early news just before Rudy's arrest, check it out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569485/Meredith-suspects-DNA-found-on-knife.html
Police confiscated several blood-soaked rags, sheets and towels, as well as a bloody blue sweatshirt...​

Is this Mach's writing?

That's an interesting link:

Giacinto Profazio, the head of the Flying Squad in Perugia, Italy, confirmed that there were traces of Miss Kercher's DNA at the tip of the blade, and traces of Knox's DNA near the handle.

It is not blood, but the DNA is very important,' he said. Knox, 20, from Seattle, Sollecito, and Patrick Diya Lumumba, a 37-year-old Congolese bar owner, are all in prison pending charges of sexual assault and murder.
Police believe that although the suspects washed the knife clean of any blood, they were unable to remove the DNA. It is possible that Knox left her traces on the knife while washing it.
Mr Profazio added: 'The knife had been cleaned with bleach, which removes blood, but not DNA.' It is understood the kitchen knife may have come from the house that Knox and Miss Kercher shared in Perugia.
Police confiscated several blood-soaked rags, sheets and towels, as well as a bloody blue sweatshirt from Sollecito's house.

Wow. Looks like Stef reported the negative blood test ('you can be sure it's not blood') to the cops but then she or someone decided to bury the result when giving untruthful evidence to Micheli.

It's also interesting that they thought the knife came from her place. Did they show it to Laura or Filomena to see if they recognised it?

 

[anglolawyer]

Impressive, Mach. I'm sure the usual ballet of rationalization will be trotted out to explain the phantom footsteps, the mixed DNA samples, the different sized feet, the convoluted attempt to make Rudy the lone assailant, and the denial of a cleanup. But this might be your best post ever, and very convincing for any lurkers who have actually looked into the case that are not predisposed to wild conspiracy.

What, specifically, did you think was good about it? It's sheer length?

Machiavelli

We agree he cut his fingers while attacking her with the knife. Let's look at this section from your very, very long post:

So he had to open at least a water tap somewhere, and close it. Did he clean the tap gear afterwards? Somewhere washed himself/herself at the sink, since that's the obvious place where you would wash your hands. Did he clean the blood he left by touching it with his bloody hands? Why the only blood there is Knox's blood, on a spot (cotton swab box) mixed with Meredith's blood?

So you point out that he says his fingers didn’t bleed. But, wait a minute, his scars were photographed. And in fact, if your hold on a knife slips and you get cut, is it actually realistic that there isn’t even a drop of his blood on your hand? When you lose hold on a knife you get cut. A knife has a blade and a blade cuts. As by human physiology there is always blood under the skin, and we also know that Guede claims to have still the scars on his skin twenty days from that day. Maybe his cuts didn’t drop blood around, ok, they didn't bleed much, but is it realistic to assume that he didn’t bleed at all? He says “wasn’t bleeding”, but just think: is it realistic?
Some here think he bled so profusely he went down stairs and was dropping blood all over the place there. I want to know why there aren't these spots upstairs too. What do you think? Shouldn't these blood spots be found in her room too? Or did he manage to differentiate his blood from hers and clean it up? If we are having a reasonable discussion, we can simply dismiss this as impossible. Either the cuts did not bleed much or they bled and the evidence should have been found by the good dottore. If she had stored the towels properly maybe his blood would have been found there?

And so, what happens with his smal blood drops as he touches something with his hands? As he washes his hands in the basin? The drain pipe was analysed for DNA, and there is no Guede's DNA.

As above. If his hand was dripping blood then what happened to the drops in the bedroom? They must be there, right? How about that pillow case? The one with his handprint in blood on it. Has that blood been typed yet?

 

[codyjuneau]

Hi RW
Good to read your interesting posts.

It is clear to me that someone with a key went into the downstairs apartment
that night.

The metal gate by the entrance door was not I believe used by the boys.

Living room/Kitchen area -
Blood on lightswitch
The material on the floor with the pole looks like cloth rather than plastic so possibly was the full length curtain at the door which was dislodged when the policewoman kicked in the glass.Several items of cloth material on the floor including a blue pillowcase?/shorts and plastic carrier bags on top of the cooker as you noted.

Giacomo's room -
Door broken down
Glass on the floor from the broken front door? and some thin red/blood lines on the floor.
The intruder Guede? must have kicked down the door into this room.

Stefano's room -
Bloodstains on the mattress and duvet
The bedsheet and duvet cover missing. Stefano probably stripped his bed before leaving for the weekend and left the duvet at the top end of the mattress.

Evidence now of human blood downstairs.
I too wonder what Kokomani was doing.

.
In the video you can see through the window before the lady tried to sever her Achilles heel kicking it in. The curtain or whatever it is appears to be already on the floor.

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

But this is completely stupid, and btw also based on a glaring false premise. The scene is full of bare footprints, some are in luminol but a couple of them are in diluted blood, and they can't be pinned on Rudy Guede.

The fact that something e.g. shoe print or fingerprint print cannot be pinned on an individual does not mean it does not belong to that individual. This is a bit like saying because there is an identifiable fingerprint on a gun and a blurred unidentifiable fingerprint the gun must have been fired by a second individual. In fact you go further despite there being insufficient ridge information to make an identification of that fingerprint you attribute it to a particular individual. This is a logical fallacy. In fact it is more logical to argue that where there are identifiable shoe prints unidentifiable prints should be attributed to the identified person unless proven otherwise.

They are in fact inconsistent with the traces of Rudy Guede.

The footprint on the bathmat is not inconsistent with Guede I would accept it is not inconsistent with Sollecito, there is insufficient data to make a determination. It should be noted the Robbins technique used by the prosecution is known to have resulted in multiple misidentifications and wrongful convictions.

There is a lamp belonging to Amanda Knox in Meredith's room where it shouldn't be and there is no good innocent explanation for that,

There are lots of innocent explanations. Meredith borrowed it, the police borrowed it, as they wanted light without using the light already in the room. There is no reasonable pro guilt explanation for it's presence. Just saying there is no innocent explanation does not make it so.

there is Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, its amount in the same magnitude to that found of Rudy Guede,

Not sure what you mean by magnitude. The DNA from the bra hook is measured at 110pg/mcl but this is a mix of Kercher and Sollecito DNA. Elsewhere we have amounts of Guede and Kercher DNA at levels of 200g and 350pg. But there is no separate measure of individual DNA. If you have data on Guede's DNA levels please reference otherwise this is an unsubstantiated allegation and not evidence (in the English language sense)

there is a print that matches the kitchen knife in the murder room

self evidently the print of the knife on the sheet does not match the knife ex Sollecito

and Meredith's DNA was found on a knife inside Sollecito's apartment.

Mach as even you have previously agreed the Knox DNA on the handle of the knife cannot be related to the murder even if this was the murder weapon because it was so thoroughly cleaned that any DNA of the wielder wold have been removed.

There is no trace of Guede in rooms which are part of the crime scene, because the crime was committed there too not just in Meredith's room,

There is DNA of Guede in Kercher's bedroom, on her clothes and purse. His handprint and shoe prints in the bedroom of Kercher and in the hall. His faecal material in the toilet.He had never been in the flat prior to the night of the murder. To say there is no trace of Guede in rooms that are part of the murder scene is so false that it verges on a lie, you must know this statement is untrue.

and there are unjusified traces of Knox and Sollecito in those areas (Solelcito's footprint in blood, Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in luminol spots in Filomena's room, and unjustified Knox blood in the context of Meredith's blood traces).

Both Sollecito and Knox and Kercher had been in the flat prior to the murder and after the murder so their DNA could legitimately be anywhere in the flat. The identification of the footprint on the bathmat cannot be reliably attributed to either Sollecito or Guede. But in the absence of identifying features the logical assumption is to attribute it to Guede who is known and admits to being covered in Kercher's blood and to trying to wash it off. There are entirely innocent reasons for having small drops of your own blood in your own bathroom.

There is abundant physical traces, there is simply no possible justification to ask for "more Knox and Sollecito" in one specific room. It's stupid and profoundly dishonest. You have absolutely no justification for expecting anything.

The reason for asking more is that if there had been a struggle as alleged there should have been transfer of fibres, DNA, bloody prints of all three participants. It is dishonest to think that one participant could leave so many prints and the other two float out like Ninja assassins. Where is the fibre evidence or were the forensic investigators too incompetent to gather this? Or did they do so but suppress it as exculpatory because there was no fibre transfer?

It's stupid also itself because utterly prejudicial, with respect to the physical description of the crime. The physical event of sexual violence and killing, in fact, is unknown. In principle, we don't know who touched the victim and who did what.

Entirely agree with you here.

This is not something that we can know in advanc, we are not supposed to put this cart before the oaxes. Let's go back to the time of their arrest and say, for example, that the story told by Knox's in her spontaneous declaration contains some truth. Let's say that she was actually there but just watching or in the next room covering her ears. Judge Micheli was absolutely confortable with the possibility of such a scenario. She woudln't need to actually "touch" the victim physically. But legally, this would make no difference: she would bear full responsability in the same degree. The bigger amount of some physical evidence from Rudy Guede merely indicates that he had a certain role, that his behaviours and movements had a certain style, that his role in the violence was more "physical" in some aspects.
But this bears no implication as for the guilt or innocence or others. The specific kind of traces left may be related to roles, personal features of the individual action, the "style" followed by that particular perpetrator, they have no direct relation with guilt or innocence.

I am interested in this last paragraph, you are usually right on the legal issues. Is it really true under the Italian legal system that if Knox was "was actually there but just watching or in the next room covering her ears", then she would be as guilty as Guede who actually carried out the sexual assault and presumably under this assumption the act of murder, but be sentenced to far longer than the actual perpetrator. In England she might be guilty under joint enterprise, but usually this assumes some prior intent, so I suspect the actually conviction would be perjury, etc. but would certainly receive a lesser sentence.

 

[Samson]

It's not that complicated. Ampulla was on the right track when she pointed out that Guede was cleaning himself rather than the crime scene. In doing so, he removed a shoe and put his foot down on the rug. The details are a matter of conjecture, but no torrent of verbiage can obscure what is shown in the crime scene photos.

I would like to see a detailed theory that links the luminol traces to the murder. That is a great deal less straightforward.

For example if Meredith had a towel in the bedroom, very likely, Rudy used it to create the bridge between the bathroom and bedroom where no footprints are contiguous with the bathmat print. No doubt this has been covered, but I have not noticed it.

 

[Planigale]

You are right, I can't know for certain who struck that blow, basically since I wasn't there. However, mine it's a reasonable and well founded inference, not a fantasy.
The re are two basic assumptions leading to this inference: that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon, and that the imprint on the sheet was left by the kitchen knife.
If you assume that the kitchen knife was a murder weapon, it could only be the cause of the left wound (not the one on the right side of the neck).

The imprint on the bed matches the kitchen knife.
The knife had Knox's DNA on the insertion between the blade and the handle, and there was Knox's blood in the bathroom (it slipped, she cut herself slightly). [someone will object to this quoting Massei, someone else may claim lack of medical report].
The knife has Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Once you assume the kitchen knife was the murder weapon, you can reasonably infer that the person holding it was Knox.
Raffaele Sollecito wouldn't hold use that, he would use his own since he always (illegally) carries his own knife with him.
There's no reason why Rudy Guede should happen to come in possession of an object which is a belonging from Sollecito's apartment, unless someone carried it to Via della Pergola for some purpose and then someone gave it to him. (It is also plausible that Knox would go to pick a weapon from Sollecito's house if she intended to commit something bad with it, since she may think it's better not pick the murder weapon from her own house; but we won't explore this scenario).
The only person directly connected to the kitchen knife is Amanda Knox.

Moreover, Rudy Guede was not holding a knife. His hands were engaged in the effort of restraining the victim, which carry several tasks like covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming and blocking her arms and wirsts, and also he manages to use a free hand to commit a sexual violence.
He pressed his open palm on the pillow and this is a further proof he wasn't holding a knife.



Every conslusion is an inferenc from the whole of the findings, in their mutual connection, not just from one thing.
here it depends a bit on how you want to define "defence wounds". I'd say Meredith had a large picture of what I may call defence wounds, but she didn't have defence wounds on her hands.

The fact is that the hands are the most effective defence mean and this implies she intended to defend herself, but her main defence tools were incapacitated. She couldn't use her hands to defend herself.

In addition we know the assault has been a progression. A single assailant won't be able to make her become incapable of using her hands throughout the whole development of teh aggressive actions.
In some moment, it is necessary to assume that perpetrators needed to carry on three kinds of aggressive actions at the same time. Or otherwise, she would have at leas one hand free either the knife blade or the aggressor's skin.

.

But besides fibers, there were also hairs. There were for example long "blond" hairs, as lond as 8 and 12 centimeters around Meredith's hands. About 20 hairs were found on her body, almost all not hers, several light coloured. They didn't have DNA, but hardly they belong to Rudy Guede.

I would disagree with you about your logical analysis leading to attribution Knox wielding the fatal blow. The whole process of murder is illogical and chaotic roles may change the knife may have been dropped. What I would accept is that if there was good evidence of the knife ex Sollecito being the murder weapon this would implicate Knox and Sollecito in the murder. I do not think there is good evidence. I think the print on the sheet self evidently does not match the knife ex Sollecito, does not match most of the knife wounds, and the DNA is very dubious. The arguments for the transport of the kitchen knife are dubious. If it was transported it could be by Sollecito who wanted to use his own knife for cooking and one could argue he had this literally to hand when the crime happened, so was more likely to be the perpetrator, especially as knifes were supposedly his thing. I could see the argument that if MK was shot the American was the likely culprit but knife work would be seen as more of an Italian thing.

I was not aware of the hair evidence. This is important and if the hair was Knox's would be very significant. Do you have more info about this? Although STR typing would not be possible unless the hair was pulled out and contained the root, mitochondrial DNA typing should have been possible. Given the differing maternal lines of the alleged perpetrators and victim this would have been useful. A competent forensic DNA specialist would have been expected to do this analysis.Did Stefanoni fail to do this? Or was it done and exculpatory and so not presented to the court?

 

[LondonJohn]

Which paragraph wasn't? I've read Dan O's theory of how Guede danced on air to the bathroom, selectively cleaned himself with erratic traces, and then dashed out of the cottage leaving footprints incompatible with locking the door.

It never made sense, was always fantasist conspiracy theory, and Mach effectively debunked all its central points. But I'm sure you and the 15 other people here will disagree. So it goes.

Huh?

There's a perfectly reasonable and plausible chronological narrative to explain the shoe/foot print evidence with Guede as the sole attacker. It's been outlined here many times before, but perhaps you've missed it (accidentally or willfully?):

1. Guede stabs Kercher in the neck.

2. Guede gets Kercher's blood on his trouser leg (and arms).

3. Guede walks to the small bathroom wearing his trainers, which (as of now) have no blood on their soles (and thus he deposits no bloody shoe prints).

4. Guede removes one or both shoes in order to step into the shower and wash the blood off his trousers with the shower wand.

5. Guede places his bare foot into the blood/water mixture that has pooled in the shower pan, then places the front of this foot onto the bath mat, thereby depositing the partial foot print.

6. Guede towels off one or both feet, puts his trainers back on (inside the small bathroom) and returns to Kercher's room carrying some towels (again leaving no prints, since his trainers have no blood on them at this point).

7. Guede uses the towels to mop up some of the blood in Kercher's room, but in the process he steps in some of the blood, thus transferring blood onto the sole of one of his trainers.

8. Guede decides to leave the cottage, so he leaves Kercher's room and walks down the corridor and into the kitchen/lounge towards the front door, depositing the bloody shoe prints in the process. The shoe prints fade as the blood is cumulatively transferred from the trainer sole to the floor.

9. Guede realises that he cannot open the front door without a key (and the bloody shoe prints clearly show hesitation and a change in direction). He turns round and returns to Kercher's room with the intention of taking her keys. Note that since all the blood on the sole of his trainer has now gone (having been deposited on the floor in the bloody shoe prints), there are no bloody shoe prints returning to Kercher's room.

10. Guede enters Kercher's room and finds her keys. In this final visit, he does not step in any blood.

11. Guede leaves Kercher's room for the last time, and decides to lock her bedroom door behind him (since he now has her keys in his hand). Having done so, he walks to the front door, unlocks the door, and leaves (neglecting to re-lock the door behind him). There are no bloody shoe prints related to this final exit, since Guede no longer has any blood on his trainers by this point.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would disagree with you about your logical analysis leading to attribution Knox wielding the fatal blow. The whole process of murder is illogical and chaotic roles may change the knife may have been dropped. What I would accept is that if there was good evidence of the knife ex Sollecito being the murder weapon this would implicate Knox and Sollecito in the murder. I do not think there is good evidence. I think the print on the sheet self evidently does not match the knife ex Sollecito, does not match most of the knife wounds, and the DNA is very dubious. The arguments for the transport of the kitchen knife are dubious. If it was transported it could be by Sollecito who wanted to use his own knife for cooking and one could argue he had this literally to hand when the crime happened, so was more likely to be the perpetrator, especially as knifes were supposedly his thing. I could see the argument that if MK was shot the American was the likely culprit but knife work would be seen as more of an Italian thing.

I was not aware of the hair evidence. This is important and if the hair was Knox's would be very significant. Do you have more info about this? Although STR typing would not be possible unless the hair was pulled out and contained the root, mitochondrial DNA typing should have been possible. Given the differing maternal lines of the alleged perpetrators and victim this would have been useful. A competent forensic DNA specialist would have been expected to do this analysis.Did Stefanoni fail to do this? Or was it done and exculpatory and so not presented to the court?

I believe Machiavelli is making up most of his hair evidence out of whole cloth. To my knowledge, the only hair of this sort (i.e. long and straight) that was ever found was the single strand found on/in Kercher's hand. This strand was inexplicably lost by the "crack" forensics morons led by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni. Yet another example of their "world-class" operation

And regarding that strand, it's my firm opinion that if it was human hair, it was in fact Kercher's own hair. It's very hard to accurately gauge hair colour from a single strand, though it's clearly not jet black. However, Kercher dyed the front of her hair - as can be clearly seen in photos of her in the days before her death. I believe that the strand shown in the post-mortem photos is wholly compatible with a strand of Kercher's own dyed hair.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For example if Meredith had a towel in the bedroom, very likely, Rudy used it to create the bridge between the bathroom and bedroom where no footprints are contiguous with the bathmat print. No doubt this has been covered, but I have not noticed it.

I'd say, look at the photos with an eye for the most obvious explanation. He walked into the bathroom with his shoes on, to clean himself up. He removed a shoe and planted his bare foot on the rug. Most likely IMO he took the shoe off so he could rinse his pant leg with the bidet, which had watery bloodstains in the basin and on the lip. When he finished cleaning himself, he put the shoe back on.

 

[Diocletus]

I'd say, look at the photos with an eye for the most obvious explanation. He walked into the bathroom with his shoes on, to clean himself up. He removed a shoe and planted his bare foot on the rug. Most likely IMO he took the shoe off so he could rinse his pant leg with the bidet, which had watery bloodstains in the basin and on the lip. When he finished cleaning himself, he put the shoe back on.

Well, that's very good Charlie, but your interpretation doesn't explain what Knox and Sollecito were doing, so it must be wrong.

 

[Samson]

I'd say, look at the photos with an eye for the most obvious explanation. He walked into the bathroom with his shoes on, to clean himself up. He removed a shoe and planted his bare foot on the rug. Most likely IMO he took the shoe off so he could rinse his pant leg with the bidet, which had watery bloodstains in the basin and on the lip. When he finished cleaning himself, he put the shoe back on.

This sounds inevitable, but I am unaware of this evidence, I must concentrate on the break in and quick killing, as I am engaging pmf dot org as best I can by pm, while my posts are disallowed there.

Have you had time to look at the Teina Pora case which is being considered by the privy council right now? It is functionally/schematically identical IMOO, while obvious ethnic and IQ differences are present.