Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Look how everybody avoids to deal with the merits of the footprint measurements.
They even avoid to deal with the merits of Vinci's analysis and with Rinaldi's findings.

No one is avoiding the merits. By the nature of the material on which the foot track was left, it's impossible to analyze it via photography.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol penetrates through paint

Chris this was re the single luminol print attributed to Raffaele. Photo of it is in post 1727.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10327458#post10327458

MichaelB,

Thank you; I wasn't sure which foot track was meant. However, I would say pretty much the same thing with respect to its lack of distinguishing marks and (partially because of the way that the luminol was applied) its resistance to being measured in an accurate way. The one thing that makes the luminol track different is that there is no way to know when it was made; therefore, I have no reason to suspect any one person of having made it. My working hypothesis remains that there are metal ions that have become bonded to the floor tile and are luminol-reactive substance and that this particular track is unrelated to the crime. I am aware that there are major differences between the situation in the hallway and that described in the abstract below. However, it does suggest that luminol can penetrate into some substances. And there was no shortage of luminol.

Abstract
"All of the sections of drywall with paint deposited over the bloodstains (maximum of eight layers of paint) showed luminescence with luminol in varying degrees of intensity, but none of them revealed any recognizable patterns. As the number of paint layers increased, so did the amount of time required for the luminol to react. Photographs did not record the luminescence in tests on samples with more than four paint layers. Photographs for tests with three and four layers barely showed the luminescence. Although limited in its ability to identify bloodstain patterns under multiple paint layers, luminol can be useful as a presumptive test for blood concealed by paint. The materials used in the experiment are listed, and the testing procedures are described in detail. Four drywall sections were used as controls with the following conditions: untreated; one coat of primer; one coat of primer and one coat of paint; and one coat primer, one coat paint, and a splatter with 2 ml of blood. The experimental drywall sections contained a base coat of primer and paint to which blood spatter consistent with a beating was applied. One to eight layers of paint were then applied to separate drywall samples. The luminol kit used in the testing was Sirchie's 16B. The luminol procedure is described, along with the procedure and camera setting for photographs. 1 table, 11 figures, and 3 references." link to abstract here

 

[Dan O.]

Footprint map:

[http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Vinci-Luminol-p42-1024x682.jpg]

Who's map is that? I find it not very accurate.

 

[Machiavelli]

No one is avoiding the merits. By the nature of the material on which the foot track was left, it's impossible to analyze it via photography.

Translation: we do not avoid the merits; but look, we believe this reason for avoiding the merits, so we do not deal with the merits.

 

[MichaelB]

Who's map is that? I find it not very accurate.

It's Rinaldi's.

P15 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lorenzo-Rinaldi-1.pdf

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rinaldi's error

Look how everybody avoids to deal with the merits of the footprint measurements.
They even avoid to deal with the merits of Vinci's analysis and with Rinaldi's findings.

Among members of the reality-based community, a supposed expert like Rinaldi loses some credibility for each mistake he makes. His attempt to find a woman's shoe print in the bedroom is risible. I posted a machine translation of some of the Vinci report a long time ago.

 

[Bill Williams]

Look how everybody avoids to deal with the merits of the footprint measurements.
They even avoid to deal with the merits of Vinci's analysis and with Rinaldi's findings.

Your style on this web-service is to merely assert things - usually guilt-sounding things - with no accompanying evidence - in the hopes that people will read it and believe what you print here on your say-so.

If you DID try to assemble evidence to back up your claims, you would run into things like this.....

As it relates to the foot measurements.....

Professor Vinci's report on the bathmat – we highlight this from the beginning - completely contradicts the conclusions of the Rinaldi-Boemia consultancy.Not only is the possibility of attributing (in the form of a "judgement of probable
identity") the bathmat footprint to Raffaele Sollecito or to Amanda Knox completely
denied, but it is somehow hypothesised that the print could have been made by the
right foot of Rudy Guede.
It must first be noted that Professor Vinci disagrees with the some of the
terminological choices of the consultants of the prosecution. In the opinion of this
technical consultant, one should not speak of "print" but of a "track"[orma], as the
term "print" should be reserved uniquely for prints containing "ridges", not for foot
outlines.​

The topics of disagreement also concern the technique used to take footprints. As he
testified in Court, Professor Vinci dissents from the methods used by the technical
operators of the ERT, and also from the R.I.S. of the Carabinieri, of placing the foot
on an inkpad and then on sheets of paper (a method suitable for studying
fingerprints).​

The professor furthermore supports the theory that the technical investigations in
question belong to the domain of forensic medicine, as they require mandatory
orthopaedic and anatomical knowledge. He then criticised the fact that the
investigations were conducted uniquely on the basis of image analysis (Dr Rinaldi
did state that he had not seen the crime scene, as he did not participate in the
inspections, and that he worked only with the photographic materials that had been
made available to him, which in particular required correcting the perspective of the
tiles because the snapshots are not perfectly perpendicular), without any direct
examination of the bathmat on which the footprint was actually found.
The professor personally examined the bathmat (on a visit to the laboratory of the
Scientific Police in Rome, where he spoke to [377] Dr Rinaldi and Dr Stefanoni), and
took accurate photographs with his own sophisticated equipment, and using
absolutely accurate measuring tapes, approved by the scientific community of the
United States.​

Methinks it is you who avoids dealing with the merits of the footprint foottrack evidence and measurements.

 

[Bill Williams]

No one is avoiding the merits. By the nature of the material on which the foot track was left, it's impossible to analyze it via photography.

Translation: we do not avoid the merits; but look, we believe this reason for avoiding the merits, so we do not deal with the merits.

This makes no sense. The point is that one needs to have the mat in their presence to come to any sort of conclusion, esp. one which would send someone to prison for 25 years.

You say you can send someone to prison for 25 years by looking at a photograph.... when the experts deny this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Look how everybody avoids to deal with the merits of the footprint measurements.
They even avoid to deal with the merits of Vinci's analysis and with Rinaldi's findings.

For anyone who actually DOES want to deal with these findings on the bathmat analysis, a full, English discussion of Vinci is here:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/translated-pages-professor-vincis-bathmat-analysis/

 

[Desert Fox]

This makes no sense. The point is that one needs to have the mat in their presence to come to any sort of conclusion, esp. one which would send someone to prison for 25 years.

You say you can send someone to prison for 25 years by looking at a photograph.... when the experts deny this.

To be fair, several states either have almost executed or have executed people for as low a quality evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Translation: we do not avoid the merits; but look, we believe this reason for avoiding the merits, so we do not deal with the merits.

What are the "merits" of the argument that Mignini was overly influenced by the psychic lady?

You, yourself, believe the reason for avoiding the merits of this argument, therefore you do not deal with the merits.

It's not so much that your reasonings make no sense - it's that when applied to the things you avoid, they actually DO make sense!

How weird is that?

 

[Machiavelli]

What are the "merits" of the argument that Mignini was overly influenced by the psychic lady?

You, yourself, believe the reason for avoiding the merits of this argument, therefore you do not deal with the merits.

(...)?

WTF are you talking about? As someone asked for sources about Mignini arresting Carlizzi instead of "being influenced" I immediately linked them.
You remove eve these ones, seems.

 

[Machiavelli]

This makes no sense. The point is that one needs to have the mat in their presence to come to any sort of conclusion, esp. one which would send someone to prison for 25 years.

You say you can send someone to prison for 25 years by looking at a photograph.... when the experts deny this.

A ruler doesn't tell you anything about measurements?

 

[Kauffer]

Rinaldi says....

A ruler doesn't tell you anything about measurements?

On the other hand, Rinaldi and Boemia themselves have objectively called attention, on p. 19 of their report, to some points of noteworthy dimensional discrepancy between the print on the mat and the reference print from Sollecito, moreover in conflict with their conclusion of probable identity.

Hellmann report referencing Rinaldi/Boemia report

 

[Numbers]

A ruler doesn't tell you anything about measurements?

I suggest it will help in the discussion to look at CCP 192 to structure the argument. In particular, one should examine both Clause 1 and Clause 2:

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

In order to evaluate evidence, one must specify criteria for the evaluation. That means, for example, a theory of relationships and a procedure for taking measurements important for showing relationships, if any exist.

Furthermore, based on ECtHR rulings, an arbitrary trial violates Article 6 of the Convention; therefore, one should not use arbitrary reasoning to form criteria (my interpretation).

For the footprint/track on the mat, the prosecution and defense had different theories and procedures for evaluation. One must compare them, and be confident that the criteria chosen is valid and not arbitrary.

Then one can proceed with the second clause. It is possible that one may conclude, even after carefully and rigorously following the criteria, that the result is not sufficiently specific or precise. That is, a specific person cannot be identified with certainty. Then one has to at least momentarily set aside this circumstantial evidence and continue with the other, more probative elements of evidence.

ETA: Of course, the result of the footprint/track analysis may be useful in excluding certain persons.

 

[Desert Fox]

On the other hand, Rinaldi and Boemia themselves have objectively called attention, on p. 19 of their report, to some points of noteworthy dimensional discrepancy between the print on the mat and the reference print from Sollecito, moreover in conflict with their conclusion of probable identity.

Hellmann report referencing Rinaldi/Boemia report

Even if the dimensions were the same, it is really bad to compare a print with single foot print. It should be some form of double blind testing where you don't know who's footprints you are comparing. If twenty percent of foot prints match (for example), not real significant. Basically, it is just bad science.

 

[Bill Williams]

This makes no sense. The point is that one needs to have the mat in their presence to come to any sort of conclusion, esp. one which would send someone to prison for 25 years.

You say you can send someone to prison for 25 years by looking at a photograph.... when the experts deny this.

A ruler doesn't tell you anything about measurements?

This is where you get into trouble. Apparently foottrack forensics DOES require more than a ruler.

So..... the following is from the Massei Report about how Professor Vinci approached this. Apparently neither you, nor the convicting court, is actually interested in the forensic science - given what Massei eventually concludes. You would much rather simply put people in jail for 25 years, with nothing but a ruler and your own confirmation bias.

So I know you will not read it.... here it is for anyone actually interested in this:

(Professor Vinci) furthermore supports the theory that the technical investigations in
question belong to the domain of forensic medicine, as they require mandatory
orthopaedic and anatomical knowledge. He then criticised the fact that the
investigations were conducted uniquely on the basis of image analysis (Dr Rinaldi
did state that he had not seen the crime scene, as he did not participate in the
inspections, and that he worked only with the photographic materials that had been
made available to him, which in particular required correcting the perspective of the
tiles because the snapshots are not perfectly perpendicular), without any direct
examination of the bathmat on which the footprint was actually found.​

Bearing in mind the claimed importance of orthopaedic and medical forensic
competence in performing this type of investigation, Professor Vinci stressed the
value of some particularly individualising details of the right foot of Raffaele
Sollecito, revealed by the said examination, consisting of: the fact that his second toe
does not touch the ground (the so-called "hammer" position of the distal phalange)
connected to a slight case of valgus on the right big toe, and the fact that the distal
phalange of the big toe also does not touch the ground, (meaning that there is a
distinct separation between the print of the ball of the foot and the print of the big
toe in the footprint of the accused).
Given these two features which make Sollecito's foot morphologically distinctive,
Professor Vinci's study basically arrives at the assertion that, while the second toe of
Raffaele Sollecito's right foot is entirely absent from the footprints known to be made
by him, on the contrary the footprint on the bathmat does contain the imprint of the
second toe.​

Apparently even though Professor Vinci said that the weave and composition of the receiving material of the bathmat makes simple photographic analysis of the foottrack impossible, Judge Massei ruled otherwise.

Why? I'm not sure why. Maybe someone else can comment. The best I can tell by reading Massei's version here is that he thinks Vinci is claiming that the foottrack is actually smaller than Raffaele's.

 

[Kauffer]

Rules of evidence

There is anyway no rule or principle by which you csn throw out pieces of evidence insofar they don't meet a "standard": that would be glaringly against jurisprudence.

As the following articles specify, there is, in fact clear authority to refuse to admit or to later discard evidence in a criminal trial. Per Article 190, for example,

"The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant."

Furthermore,

"Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties."


Article 189
Evidence not regulated by law

1. If evidence not regulated by law is requested, the judge may introduce it if it is deemed suitable to determine the facts and does not compromise the moral freedom of the person. After hearing the parties on the methods for gathering evidence, the judge shall order the admission of evidence.

Article 190
Right to evidence

1. Evidence shall be admitted upon request of a party. The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant.
2. The cases in which evidence shall be admitted ex officio are set by law.
3. Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties.


Article 191
Unlawfully gathered evidence

1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

 

[sept79]

As the following articles specify, there is, in fact clear authority to refuse to admit or to later discard evidence in a criminal trial. Per Article 190, for example,

"The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant."

Furthermore,

"Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties."
.
.
.

Hmmm . . . Mach, what say you ?

 

[Numbers]

As the following articles specify, there is, in fact clear authority to refuse to admit or to later discard evidence in a criminal trial. Per Article 190, for example,

"The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant."

Furthermore,

"Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties."


Article 189
Evidence not regulated by law

1. If evidence not regulated by law is requested, the judge may introduce it if it is deemed suitable to determine the facts and does not compromise the moral freedom of the person. After hearing the parties on the methods for gathering evidence, the judge shall order the admission of evidence.

Article 190
Right to evidence

1. Evidence shall be admitted upon request of a party. The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant.
2. The cases in which evidence shall be admitted ex officio are set by law.
3. Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties.


Article 191
Unlawfully gathered evidence

1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

The Italian courts - including the Hellmann court - demonstrated that they would not obey the Italian Constitution and Italian law with respect to admitting evidence requested by the defense. This included their refusal or inability (perhaps due to a fear of the police, some of whom have been alleged to be involved in criminal behavior in Perugia*) to order admitted the suppressed evidence held by the forensic police as well as evidence requested by the defense. The failure to admit the defense-requested evidence, including for example, audiometric testing to determine the reliability of the ear-witness testimony, suppressed evidence, and defense-expert results, shows a gross violation of the fairness of the trials.

*See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-...lian-detectives-impact-the-latest-knox-trial/