Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[MichaelSmith]

Rinaldi was a hired gun.

When my defense team examined the official paperwork, they noticed that the analysis of the footprints— including extensive inquiry into the length and shape of the foot likely to have produced them— had been conducted by two members of the Polizia Scientifica in Rome, working not in their official capacity but as private consultants charging thousands of euros to Mignini’s office. One of the analysts, Lorenzo Rinaldi, was a physicist, not a specialist in anatomy, and the other, Pietro Boemia, was a fingerprint technician with no further scientific credentials. That begged the question: if Mignini’s office felt it needed to contract the job out to private consultants, why wouldn’t it go to people with more pertinent qualifications? The whole thing stank.

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 2086-2091). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Compare that to Professor Vinci's qualifications.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

At some point I have to rely on what has been measured by the experts otherwise the world might as well be a pancake. Their conclusions were based on those measurements. Conclusions were that the print does not match Knox nor Guede, and it is compatible with Sollecito. That is all. I have seen the measurements and they indeed seem to be a closer match to Sollecito than Guede. I have not seen any reason why they should have gotten it all wrong, and I have seen no 'facts' that prove otherwise. IMO what the prints 'look like' to people is not very relevant. Personally I think it looks like a pigeon.

It's obvious that the contour of sollecitos toe doesn't fit. It's not compatible.

 

[Katody]

These images were taken from the internet. There are not scaled. Guede's print and the bathmat were one image and I added Sollecito's print. We can see the dimensions in these images. I lined them up using guides. I can post the image with the guides if it helps.



link

The images originally come from the court documents, namely Rinaldi's report. What is important, the arrows and numbers in them are original Rinaldi's work.

Thanks for posting them because what is evident from these images is the very arbitrary way Rinaldi "measured" the prints.

Take a look especially at the vertical "37 mm" arrow in Sollecito's print. What does it actually measure? Why does it reach beyond the actual toe print? Is it because the bloody print has a much longer toe?

Look at the horizontal "30 mm" arrow in the bathmat print. Why does it reach well outside the toe print edge on the right side? Is it because Sollecito's toe is much wider then the bloody print?

It seems to me there was an effort by Rinaldi to stretch the numbers to fit Sollecito in. It may look plausible on a spreadsheet table but one glance at the actual photos and it's obvious it's Guede's foot and Sollecito is not a match at all.

 

[sherlockh]

It's obvious that the contour of sollecitos toe doesn't fit. It's not compatible.

My opinion is that it is not so obvious at all. On the contrary. You can't just cut a piece of somebody's big toe and claim it is a 2nd toe. Furthermore Guede has a space between his big toe and 2nd toe. Either way, there is more to a foot than just a big toe so I rather leave it to the experts.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1116/5106871399_b61d22e185.jpg

 

[Tugela]

At some point I have to rely on what has been measured by the experts otherwise the world might as well be a pancake. Their conclusions were based on those measurements. Conclusions were that the print does not match Knox nor Guede, and it is compatible with Sollecito. That is all. I have seen the measurements and they indeed seem to be a closer match to Sollecito than Guede. I have not seen any reason why they should have gotten it all wrong, and I have seen no 'facts' that prove otherwise. IMO what the prints 'look like' to people is not very relevant. Personally I think it looks like a pigeon.

It is completely subjective though, to me the footprint does not look like Sollecito, and I am just as much an "expert" as these "experts". The only reason it matches S is because the "expert" wants it to.

It is junk science developed by self appointed "experts".

That is why evidence like that should be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism, if not outright disregarded.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

My opinion is that it is not so obvious at all. On the contrary. You can't just cut a piece of somebody's big toe and claim it is a 2nd toe. Furthermore Guede has a space between his big toe and 2nd toe. Either way, there is more to a foot than just a big toe so I rather leave it to the experts.

A foot is not a fixed object. It contains joints and so on. In this case it can be the missing 2nd toe of the foot of Guede. In this case the measurements will be complete different.

The gap of sollecitos toe is the most signicant difference and the imprint doesn't show it.

 

[sherlockh]

A foot is not a fixed object. It contains joints and so on. In this case it can be the missing 2nd toe of the foot of Guede. In this case the measurements will be complete different.

The gap of sollecitos toe is the most signicant difference and the imprint doesn't show it.

I can see the gap just fine. I don't believe that Guede merged his 2nd toe with his big toe.

 

[sherlockh]

It is completely subjective though, to me the footprint does not look like Sollecito, and I am just as much an "expert" as these "experts". The only reason it matches S is because the "expert" wants it to.

It is junk science developed by self appointed "experts".

That is why evidence like that should be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism, if not outright disregarded.

No, that is not true. This is simple math. Everybody agrees that the footprint does not match Knox's. For the same reasons does it not match Guede's. You have a footprint, and you start taking measurements and compare them to the measurements of other footprints. Then if several characteristics do not fit with one but fit with the other you can draw some conclusions. The measurements clearly indicate that it is compatible with Sollecito's foot and in no way does it resemble Guede's footprint. Not even close. JMO.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

 

[MichaelSmith]

No, that is not true. This is simple math. Everybody agrees that the footprint does not match Knox's. For the same reasons does it not match Guede's. You have a footprint, and you start taking measurements and compare them to the measurements of other footprints. Then if several characteristics do not fit with one but fit with the other you can draw some conclusions. The measurements clearly indicate that it is compatible with Sollecito's foot and in no way does it resemble Guede's footprint. Not even close. JMO.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

That's opinion by an anonymous blogger and not credible and neither is the chart done by another anonymous blogger from another site.

Link to trial transcripts, primary source documents or blogs/articles by real independent experts & professionals willing to state their name and experience or don't link at all.

 

[Harmony 2]

There is no evidence that Guede washed his clothes in the bathroom. There is no evidence that he was in the bathroom. If Guede was washing his clothes and feet in the bathroom, shouldn't there be at least some evidence that this happened?

Do you think he walked out of the cottage and down the street with bloody hands and blood on his clothes?

Italian police wanted him in connection with Miss Kercher's brutal killing, having found his bloody hand print on a pillow at the scene of the crime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...redith-Kercher-murder-Rudy-Guede-profile.html

 

[Katody]

My opinion is that it is not so obvious at all. On the contrary. You can't just cut a piece of somebody's big toe and claim it is a 2nd toe. Furthermore Guede has a space between his big toe and 2nd toe. Either way, there is more to a foot than just a big toe so I rather leave it to the experts.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1116/5106871399_b61d22e185.jpg

Whoever authored this image manipulation did a poor job (or good job of obfuscation) Everything is red, even the placard.

 

[Harmony 2]

FYI, when you post a picture you must cite the source.

:bump:

Please provide a link to the source even when attaching in a thumbnail...
We need to do better about linking to the source of information..

:gthanks:

 

[sherlockh]

It is simple enough, you don't require contamination at the lab or at the scene (although the fact that no other trace of Sollecito was found it most likely IS contamination of some sort). Sollecito was AK's boyfriend. His DNA would have potentially been all over her belongings. If MK subsequently picked up one of these belongings (in the bathroom for example) then used that same hand to close the clasp on her bra, then there could be DNA on it.

DNA is only really useful when there is no known connection between the victim and someone else. In this case there WAS a connection, since Sollecito was AK's intimate friend and AK lived with MK. Drawing conclusions from the presence or absence of DNA in that scenario is bad science, since you potentially could find DNA of both of them all over the place, and even at Sollecito's residence, since AK could carry MK DNA there just as easily as she could carry Sollecito DNA to her home.

Just because somebody is a friend of a friend does not mean contamination is probable. Guede was friends with Meredith's boyfriend but nobody believes that boyfriend brought Guede's DNA over. Chances of secondary transfer are very small, and tertiary transfer are astronomical small. It is not believable that just because Sollecito has been a few times in the cottage that that means there is a realistic chance that his DNA came on the bra clasp accidentally. I don't see any reason to assume he didn't touch it himself and left his DNA in the usual way. JMO.

 

[SMK]

That's opinion by an anonymous blogger and not credible and neither is the chart done by another anonymous blogger from another site.

Link to trial transcripts, primary source documents or blogs/articles by real independent experts & professionals willing to state their name and experience or don't link at all.

Yes, the chart is gone. I really did think all of this foot stuff was objective and empirical science. I also thought these prints and measurements were the ones used in the Massei trial.

Why use it if it is just subject to confirmation bias? What kind of evidence is it?

A bloody footprint left on a bathmat should have left DNA with the blood. Why is there no way to determine who left the footprint, then?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Professor Vinci's report http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf

Rinaldi's report http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi1.pdf

& http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi2.pdf

 

[Katody]

Chances of secondary transfer are very small

Does it mean that all the 5 or 6 males whose DNA profiles were found on the metal hook of the clasp touched this same exact spot?

 

[sherlockh]

Whoever authored this image manipulation did a poor job (or good job of obfuscation) Everything is red, even the placard.

It also looks red in the first picture posted by Otto, and the bathmat looks grey (it is blue). I assumed everyone realized that these pics were enhanced. The contrast has been enhanced so it becomes more clear that the big toe is not 2 toes merged together. I don't see why that is a problem.

 

[Katody]

It also looks red in the first picture posted by Otto, and the bathmat looks grey (it is blue). I assumed everyone realized that these pics were enhanced. The contrast has been enhanced so it becomes more clear that the big toe is not 2 toes merged together. I don't see why that is a problem.

Otto's picture just looks clearer to me. The outlines of the toe are visible. I can't make out the shape of the toe in the enhanced photo at all. It drowns in the reddish background. Maybe it's my screen.

 

[sherlockh]

Does it mean that all the 5 or 6 males whose DNA profiles were found on the metal hook of the clasp touched this same exact spot?

There aren't 5 or 6 males. There is definitely one extra which is not so strange since she had a boyfriend. Dr Balding mentions 4 extra peaks. More than one is already speculation. Despite all the leading questions by the interviewer, Dr Balding was very clear that there is not a problem, and a few extra peaks is completely routine. He was even mentioned by the prosecutor.

<modsnip>
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2013/07/an-interview-with-david-balding.html

 

[Katody]

There aren't 5 or 6 males. There is definitely one extra which is not so strange since she had a boyfriend.

I distinctly remember Conti and Vecchiotti writing about several contributors. Ah, here it is:

The electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome markers shows, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, the presence of additional peakswith heights that exceed the threshold of 50 RFU which, despite not being in stutter position, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors which were not revealed by the Technical Consultant, confirming what was already observed in the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs.

http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/

So it looks like there were more males than just Raffaele and (hypothetically) the boyfriend. Chris Halkides who reviewed the graphs also confirms this finding of the independent experts, IIRC.

What baffles me is that all that many profiles landed on the very tiny spot which is one of the metal hooks. I'd expect boyfriend's DNA to be on the fabric part of the clasp, or the fabric of the bra itself. What are the chances so many people touched the tiny hook and avoided leaving any DNA on the fabric? I can't find any sensible explanation for this.