Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Open Inquiry]

Frank's account at Perugia Shock seems accurate. In those photos it looks like Rudy's footprint. It is too thin to be Raffaele's footprint. I also think the footprint on the bath mat is slightly smeared on the ball of the foot to the left, as it would if the foot shifted into the tufts of the bathmat.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/sollecitos-expert-questions-all.html

You can also see a heavy step to the upper left on the bath mat footprint and in the print of Rudy's footprint.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And yet...the size doesn't match up...

 

[Kestrel]

The problem with Kermits powerpoint presentations is that he doesn't just present the facts but starts with a conclusion and plays with the evidence to make it work. That bath mat print for instance, he doesn't just trace the visible extent of the stain and then go through the suspect prints to exclude those that are not compatible. He instead has already decided that this stain will be Raffaele's footprint and traces an imaginary boundary to be compatible.

Kermit also made the mistake of assuming footprint length is the same as foot length. Foot length for determining shoe size is measured from the back of the heel to the tip of the longest toe. This length is longer than the part of the foot that touches the ground and creates a footprint.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Frank's account at Perugia Shock seems accurate. In those photos it looks like Rudy's footprint. It is too thin to be Raffaele's footprint. I also think the footprint on the bath mat is slightly smeared on the ball of the foot to the left, as it would if the foot shifted into the tufts of the bathmat.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/sollecitos-expert-questions-all.html

But it's flawed. It presents only the features of Rudy's foot...but again, not in its proper scale/size which is completely ignored. If shown at the proper scale then Rudy's foot is FAR too large to fit that print.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kermit also made the mistake of assuming footprint length is the same as foot length. Foot length for determining shoe size is measured from the back of the heel to the tip of the longest toe. This length is longer than the part of the foot that touches the ground and creates a footprint.

Really? So footprint length can differ from foot length by a factor of 10 sizes can it? Or by a factor of 5 cm's can it? Rudy's footprint can effectively become smaller then not only Raffaele's but Amanda's shoe size can it? You expect us to swallow this tosh?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Really? So footprint length can differ from foot length by a factor of 10 sizes can it? Or by a factor of 5 cm's can it? Rudy's footprint can effectively become smaller then not only Raffaele's but Amanda's shoe size can it? You expect us to swallow this tosh?

Certainly the footprint is not smaller than Amanda's shoe size is it? What do you mean by that?

 

[Open Inquiry]

The footprint in scale of the mat should be shown with Rudy's footprint in scale of the mat. Yes, scale is important. But this would have pointed out by Frank if the sizes were off. The features indicates that it is most likely also the same size. logically speaking. The error is probably in thinking the footprint on the mat is smaller than it is.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Certainly the footprint is not smaller than Amanda's shoe size is it? What do you mean by that?

It's explained in Kermit's PowerPoint is it not? In order to make Rudy's print fit the print on the mat, they had to to shrink it down to a scale that made it smaller then Amanda's foot (less than 23 cm).

 

[Fulcanelli]

The footprint in scale of the mat should be shown with Rudy's footprint in scale of the mat. Yes, scale is important. But this would have pointed out by Frank if the sizes were off. The features indicates that it is most likely also the same size. logically speaking. The error is probably in thinking the footprint on the mat is smaller than it is.

No it wouldn't, because either he didn't have that information, or if he did he neglected it. Unless that is, you can find the part where he discusses scale/size? My recollection of his article is that he neglected all mention of scale/size and restricted it to feature comparison, just as the defence expert did in court.

 

[Open Inquiry]

It's explained in Kermit's PowerPoint is it not? In order to make Rudy's print fit the print on the mat, they had to to shrink it down to a scale that made it smaller then Amanda's foot (less than 23 cm).

This doesn't make sense because the footprint on the mat wasn't smaller than Amanda's foot. All one has to do it measure the actual footprint on the mat and get the measurement of the footprints on file. How long is the footprint on the mat?

 

[Fulcanelli]

This doesn't make sense because the footprint on the mat wasn't smaller than Amanda's foot. All one has to do it measure the actual footprint on the mat and get the measurement of the footprints on file. How long is the footprint on the mat?

It makes perfect sense. Rudy's print had to be shrunk to that size in order to get all the features of his foot within the outline of the print.

And again, I refer you to Kermit's PowerPoint, it's all demonstrated next to rulers combined with a size chart...it's all laid on.

 

[Open Inquiry]

This doesn't make sense because the footprint on the mat wasn't smaller than Amanda's foot. All one has to do it measure the actual footprint on the mat and get the measurement of the footprints on file. How long is the footprint on the mat?

I looked at the power point again. I have read that Rudy's foot size is 45. That is only a 2.5 cm difference than a 42. That amount would be the indicated by what Krestel pointed out.

I have this chart as well. It shows Nike European shoe sizes with cm equivalents.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/TWInt/Twint_Pages/shoe.html

 

[Open Inquiry]

Rudy's Nike shoes were size 11 so that would impy size 46, assuming they fit him, but I have also read he wore size 45.

 

[Open Inquiry]

This article says Raffaele wears size 42.5.

"And it should be noted that on November 6 a pair of Nike size 42 ½ gymnastic shoes and a black flick knife 8.5cm long and 2cm wide were seized from the ownership of Sollecito Raffaele."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568861/How-the-sex-game-went-wrong-Judges-report.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

I looked at the power point again. I have read that Rudy's foot size is 45. That is only a 2.5 cm difference than a 42. That amount would be the indicated by what Krestel pointed out.

I have this chart as well. It shows Nike European shoe sizes with cm equivalents.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/TWInt/Twint_Pages/shoe.html

Except Rudy's print hasn't been shrunk to a size 42, it's been shrunk to a size 36!

 

[Fulcanelli]

n/d

 

[lane99]

...
...So I agree with Mignini (and almost everyone who has to do with rl criminal justice): the motive is not relevant...

Someone's been drinking a bit too much of the Kool Aid served up at places like "Perugia Misinformation Files" and "Screw Justice for Meridith Kercher".

NO competent professional involved in criminal justice would agree that considerations of motive are irrelevant to the investigation of, and the prosecution of defendants charges with, criminal acts.

 

[snook1]

Someone's been drinking a bit too much of the Kool Aid served up at places like "Perugia Misinformation Files" and "Screw Justice for Meridith Kercher".

NO competent professional involved in criminal justice would agree that considerations of motive are irrelevant to the investigation of, and the prosecution of defendants charges with, criminal acts.

This.

 

[stilicho]

Thank you. I am actually quite excited about this. Open examination is great.

I am only committed to objective assessment and analysis, not one outcome or another.

Let us know when you've done it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Someone's been drinking a bit too much of the Kool Aid served up at places like "Perugia Misinformation Files" and "Screw Justice for Meridith Kercher".

NO competent professional involved in criminal justice would agree that considerations of motive are irrelevant to the investigation of, and the prosecution of defendants charges with, criminal acts.

The establishment of motive is not required to either charge, try or convict someone of murder.