So What Did Knox See In That Bathroom of Hers?

This video has been posted in defense of Knox, suggesting that since the blood was minimal it would not be unusual or odd for her to think anything about taking a shower.



Knox wrote an email to her friends and family about what occurred in Italy on Sunday November 4th, just days after the murder. In the email she states the following concerning the blood in the bathroom:

i undressed in my room and took a quick shower in one of the two
bathrooms in my house, the one that is right next to meredith and my bedrooms (situated right next to one another). it was after i stepped out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the bathroom. it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago, but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange, because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry about. i left the bathroom and got dressed in my room.

During her testimony however more details are added and she changes the sequence of events:

 Then I went into my room, um, and I changed, well no, I made a mistake, I went into the bathroom. I had these earrings, I had a lot of them, I like earrings, I had had them pierced recently, and I always had to wash them carefully because one was a little infected, and I had to take the earrings out and clean the ear, and that's when I saw some drops of blood on the sink. At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought "That's weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower." Then when I got out of the shower, I saw that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back, brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes, I took -- no!

 So, let's point out a few things that are strikingly different:

1) In the email that was just days after she claims to have not noticed any blood until AFTER her shower.

2) In her testimony her first observation of blood was BEFORE taking her shower.

3) In her email she says the first place she noticed blood was the bathmat, then the sink.

4) In her testimony the first place she takes note of blood was in the sink, then the bathmat.

5) Her email makes NO mention of using the mat to hop over to her room. Bathmats have a backing on them that prevents them from moving easily. Quite frankly this maneuver she describes is implausible along with being completely superfluous. Who cares if you get the floor a bit wet in a cottage you are renting? It's not like you cannot just grab a new towel later and quickly wipe up any of the water since is would be quite minimal. There was no carpeting in the bathroom or the hallway so cleaning up water would be easy. However, I digress...

She does make mention of her ears but then she quickly retracts the idea that so much blood could have come from her ears.

We also have the issue with her not noticing the footprint on the bathmat FIRST before doing anything. In fact watching the video I linked to clearly shows that it is indeed the print that stands out the most and yet, in her email AND her testimony she doesn't notice the blood on the bathmat until AFTER showering. This is the only consistent statement yet it's the most unlikely.

Here is a fancy little flow chart to summarize and you can click on it to enlarge:

I see nothing in this video that helps her in any way. In fact, isn't it quite obvious that the person(s) who murdered Meredith would indeed be covered in blood? It seems everyone agrees that the person(s) who killed Meredith did in fact go into the bathroom. How would they have left such a small amount of Meredith's blood in the bathroom, if there was no clean up?

Knox fans would have us believe that Guede alone went into this bathroom and then cleaned up so thoroughly that he only left some very small traces of Meredith's blood mixed with Knox's DNA and NO DNA from him. Yet, even though he stuck around making all this effort to clean up, move the body, cover her body, he still manages to leave DNA traces inside Meredith's room, locks her door with a key he found (I guess he knew that the door had to be locked with a key?), left no footprints outside this same door he locked, and then walks out the door - hopping on one foot mind you, and just leaves the front door wide open. Oh yeah, he also left a stool sample in the other bathroom. I guess in all the furry of careful cleaning which he took such great care in doing in the other bathroom, he forgot to flush the other toilet.

Someone please explain how this makes the slightest bit of sense to anyone?

We are told that no trace of Knox was found in Meredith's room so therefore she could not have been a part of this crime yet, using this same completely illogical logic, we obviously cannot conclude Guede was in that bathroom or the room in which they claim he broke into. So where does that leave us?

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Sure it's possible he was indeed there in the bathroom however what makes no sense is him bothering to clean up in the manner he did. He also would have no reason to lock Meredith's door if in fact he decided to leave the front door open. Why not stay and lock the front door in the same methodical manner he locked her bedroom door if he had her keys?

Also we must question why Knox's lamp was inside Meredith's room? It was located on the floor, which is an unusual location for a lamp. Had Meredith herself taken the lamp or borrowed it from Amanda, Amanda herself never mentioned it and there is no DNA or prints to show who in fact brought the lamp into the room.

Yes it's over however this is just one of many (and I do mean many), reasons why I simply cannot agree with this final verdict.

Still waiting for the final reasoning...