So how come no Rudy DNA or blood or fibres were found in the small bathroom,
Because Guede rinsed out the shower well once he'd stepped out of it (and Knox showered in the same shower the next morning, further removing any possible vestige of Guede), and there were no other places where he might potentially have shed his DNA anyhow. Next.
but Amanda's blood was on the tap/faucet?
Because Knox used that small bathroom every day for her ablutions, and because Knox had bled from her earlier badly-performed ear piercings. And the droplet/smear of Knox's blood on the tap was easy to miss, especially in a small, low-lit bathroom (after all, if Knox really had participated in the murder and had deposited the blood at that time, it's rather compelling to think that she would have sought to "clean up" that blood too, dontcha think? And exactly the same reasons why she might have missed it in any hypothetical post-murder clean up are the very same reasons why she might have missed it when her ear dropped some blood after the piercings). Next.
As more of a scientist/mathematician type myself,
You're not demonstrating much evidence of this within this thread, unfortunately. Next.
I find the actual scientific measurements by experienced forensic footprint analysts more compelling than a hypothetical "what-if" scenario by detractors. The scientists measured the print - the idea "it's just a blob and cannot be measured" sounds like a defence excuse, as of course it can be measured. "Anything up to size 49," indeed as if anyone seriously considers a 6'9" person could be the culprit.
That's because you don't understand the actual PROPER science behind this matter. The proper science tells us that you simply cannot measure the dimensions of a print made in a saturated medium on a thickly-tufted bathmat whose fibres and textures wick and distort the imprint in all sorts of ways, with absolutely no knowledge of how much weight was or was not placed onto that foot at the time of the deposit, then compare those measurements with reference prints made on a flat, hard paper surface using printer's ink and a standard weight-bearing footfall. Get it now? Next.
I went for a foot orthotic as I have a tendency to overpronate (low arch, which causes foot to roll inward) and the poditrician took a quick 3-D laser image of my foot, and now I have an arch support insole unique to me!
This anecdote is both utterly irrelevant and totally non-applicable to the matter under discussion. Astonishing that you felt its inclusion might possibly have added anything to the debate. Next.
Of course footprints are measurable. We know it's a porous cotton bathmat so we adjust for it. The fact it is diluted blood is neither here nor there. The footprint of one person in such conditions will be measureably different from another. In addition, it is nothing to do with, "what it looks like".
So just how did "we adjust for it", Vixen? I'd be fascinated to know exactly how these (mythical) adjustments were made. What "adjustments" did Rinaldi, Boemia, SomeAlibi or you make to take account of the texture, material, movable tufting, saturation spread and footfall characteristics which all will have played a
significant role in shaping the partial print on the bathmat? What's that you say? NO ADJUSTMENTS??! Really?! Next.
We can measure, angles, focal points, pressure areas, width, space between toes. Raff has a distinct hammer toe, which is apparent here, and is one of the reasons Drs Rinaldi and Boemia identified the print as his.
This is entirely bogus pseudoscience on the one hand, and a really dreadfully improper case of suspect-centric analysis on the other hand. What Rinaldi and Boemia claim to be there in terms of Sollecito's toe characteristic simply is NOT THERE. It's a simple case of people seeing what they want (need?) to see.
And I'll say again, if the bathmat print really DID show Sollecito's unusual toe shape (from his reference print) with sufficient reliability and accuracy as to enable a positive match, then Sollecito (and probably also Knox) would have been convicted. And I (and many others) would switch to a belief in their guilt. But the reason they are ACQUITTED - and why I and many others contend that there's zero reliable, credible evidence of their participation and that they almost certainly played no role in Kercher's murder - is that in fact it's impossible to match any aspect of the bathmat partial print to Sollecito's reference print. Next.
The fact you assert, "It is Rudy's footprint" when you have just said it could be anybody's tells me that deep in your heart you know your protagonists are not innocent, because otherwise the correct question would be, "Who are the other two perpetrators, if they are not Amanda and Raff", or at least, "The other one"?
Where do I assert "the footprint is a positive match to Guede"? Because you appear to be still tragically unable to understand the distinction (and the cause/effect correlation). What I ACTUALLY assert is this: 1) It's impossible to positively match the print to Sollecito OR Guede; 2) It's impossible to exclude the print from Sollecito or Guede; 3) all the other evidence points towards (and is totally compatible with) Guede as sole perpetrator, and not one single credible, reliable piece of evidence points towards Sollecito's participation; 4) therefore, IMO it's reasonable to suggest that the footprint belongs to Guede.
So, in other words, I'm not asserting that the print is Guede's because the print can be positively matched to Guede - but rather I'm asserting that since Guede cannot be excluded as the source of the print, and since all the other evidence points strongly to Guede as sole perpetrator, it's
therefore reasonable to posit that the print belongs to Guede. Can you see how the logic - applied properly - works here? Next.
What is it to you it is identified as Raff's foot? Do you have a special affinity for towards these people that you've decided to defend them even in the face of a clear footrpint in Mez' blood that is extremely compatible with Raff, and incompatible with either Rudy or Amanda?
A more pertinent question is why you (and many others) seem to have some weird need to believe that most/all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators actually believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty, but that we choose for some reason to promote an argument for their acquittal/innocence despite that belief. Oh, and the print is not incompatible with Guede. That's rather important in the circumstances. Next. Oh... there is no next. For now.
