Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Is there any evidence, apart from the lack of knowledge of the 09:24 phone call on Knox's behalf, that Sollecito was at his apartment on the morning of 2nd?

I thought the story of Knox solo visit to the cottage was suspicious, in my opinion, and might have been used as cover story for why Sollecito was at the cottage when the police arrived.

Aside from the witness Quintevalle who saw Amanda early that morning heading off towards the cottage without Raffaele, no.

 

[katy_did]

And if Dan O thinks something is 'skewed' or incorrect on that PowerPoint then let him come forward and demonstrate to us how it is so.

I'll take on that challenge.

Kermit's PowerPoints on the footprints have always seemed flawed to me for a few reasons. The first is that, as has been said, he assumes that the size of a footprint is the same size as the foot that made it, when in fact it's likely to be a couple of centimetres shorter. This fact alone means all his measurements are significantly out. The second is that he has an overreliance on the 'typical' length of a footprint based on shoe size, and doesn't take into account either differences in an individual's foot (not all people with the shoe size 39 have the same length foot) or that width is not necessarily proportionate to length. In fact, a glance at Rudy and Raffaele's footprints would confirm this is the case, since with the naked eye, Rudy's foot looks long and narrow, while Raffaele's is shorter and broader.

The second mistake is excusable if the actual measurements of the footprints are not available, and for a long time I wasn't able to find a full set of measurements for the prints. However, the new site injusticeinperugia does show the measurements used by Rinaldi in court. And indeed, these measurements show that Rudy's foot is actually slightly narrower than Raffaele's, 96mm to Raffaele's 99mm. Furthermore, one of the crucial measurements used by Rinaldi in court was wrong. He lists the measurement of Guede's footprint from the fork of his big/second toes to the ball of his foot as 66.7mm. In fact, this part of Guede's foot is only about 55.2mm. The website explains in more detail, but this is very easily checkable by anyone with an image editing program, simply by calculating the ratios between the different parts of the foot in pixels and the actual measurements in millimetres. I tried it using the three correct measurements of Guede's foot, and my results were slightly larger than those listed on the site, but only marginally: 55.6mm, 55.8mm and 55.9mm. A very long way from Rinaldi's 66.7mm, however.

Therefore, Guede's foot is actually SMALLER in the forefoot region than Sollecito's: 96mm x 55.5mm versus 99mm x 57mm. The claim repeated here and elsewhere that Guede's foot is "too big" to fit the bathmat footprint is, simply and straightforwardly, false.

 

[katy_did]

This leaves a real problem with Kermit's PowerPoints, which clearly show Guede's foot overlapping the bathmat footprint at the sides. How is this possible, when we know Guede's foot is only 96mm in width - actually a few millimetres narrower than the bathmat print?

I decided to calculate the width of Kermit's versions of Guede's footprints to see how they measured up to the actual measurements of Guede's foot. First, I looked at the "I Shrunk the Black Kid" presentation. I used Kermit's estimate (in that PP) that Guede's foot is about 28.5 cm in length to calculate the width of the footprint shown, by taking the length of the footprint in pixels (531px) and the width (207px).

My calculation was therefore: 285mm / 531 pixels = 0.5367231mm per pixel x 207 pixels = 111.1016949mm. In other words, the width of Guede' foot in Kermit's presentation is 111mm, compared to its actual measurement of 96mm.

I repeated the same calculations with the 'typical' footprint in another of Kermit's presentations. This one doesn't actually use Guede's footprint, but instead uses one Kermit found on the internet. The width of this footprint was slightly wider again: approximately 115mm (calculation: 284mm / 524px x 213px = 115.44mm).

My conclusions: (1) Guede's footprint is certainly NOT "too big" to fit the bathmat footprint, and (2) Kermit really has no business accusing anyone of distorting anything.

 

[katy_did]

My above measurements are all checkable, of course, but I also did a very quick re-arrangement of one of Kermit's PP slides in order to use his own ruler to demonstrate that Guede's foot is much too wide. Apologies for the rough nature of the image. It shows Guede's foot to be very slightly narrower than 111mm, but still much wider than its actual length. The thin red line marks where the left side of Guede's foot should end.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'll take on that challenge.

You can bend it, twist t and shake it as much as you like. You can't be reducing Rudy's foot to a shoe size smaller then Amanda's, to 22.5 cm's in order to fit the print on the mat and that's he only way it can be done. It's risible.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Therefore, Guede's foot is actually SMALLER in the forefoot region than Sollecito's: 96mm x 55.5mm versus 99mm x 57mm. The claim repeated here and elsewhere that Guede's foot is "too big" to fit the bathmat footprint is, simply and straightforwardly, false.

I would suggest you try it with Raffaele's print in the corridor as that also has the heel.

The Massei's report has clearly judged the footprint in the corridor and on the mat to be Raffaele's. Therefore, I submit that it's your conclusions are, simply and straightforwardly, false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kermit's PowerPoints on the footprints have always seemed flawed to me for a few reasons. The first is that, as has been said, he assumes that the size of a footprint is the same size as the foot that made it, when in fact it's likely to be a couple of centimetres shorter. This fact alone means all his measurements are significantly out. The second is that he has an overreliance on the 'typical' length of a footprint based on shoe size, and doesn't take into account either differences in an individual's foot (not all people with the shoe size 39 have the same length foot) or that width is not necessarily proportionate to length. In fact, a glance at Rudy and Raffaele's footprints would confirm this is the case, since with the naked eye, Rudy's foot looks long and narrow, while Raffaele's is shorter and broader.

Umm...if they had a longer length foot, they'd be a bigger shoe size.

Rudy's foot length is 45 cm.

 

[Fiona]

New evidence during the appeal by the defence is only allowed in rare circumstances such as new technology or techniques that weren't available when the judge gave the verdict. That is information from someone close to the defense. I can check one other source. I am also looking for links.

Where did you get the information that it is allowed? Just wondering. There seems to be a discrepancy.

Who is this "someone close to the defence"? It is my understanding that what you say is true in both the UK and the USA: it is not true in Italy. The Italian system differs in many ways. Are you aware of that?

 

[katy_did]

Umm...if they had a longer length foot, they'd be a bigger shoe size.

Rudy's foot length is 45 cm.

Wow, really? Even Kermit only estimates it as 28.5cm...

You really can't get around the fact that the dimensions of Guede's forefoot are smaller than those of Sollecito: we have the actual measurements, not vague guesses based on shoe size. Guede's foot is 96mm in width, Sollecito's is 99mm. Kermit has distorted Guede's footprint so that it is too big to fit the bathmat footprint. There can be no doubt of this, since in his diagram Guede's foot is too wide to fit the footprint.

If you have an argument that addresses the clear points I made and shows how my reasoning is flawed, go ahead and post it. I did double check the calculations I made, but I'd welcome corrections if you can spot an error.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Wow, really? Even Kermit only estimates it as 28.5cm...

You really can't get around the fact that the dimensions of Guede's forefoot are smaller than those of Sollecito: we have the actual measurements, not vague guesses based on shoe size. Guede's foot is 96mm in width, Sollecito's is 99mm. Kermit has distorted Guede's footprint so that it is too big to fit the bathmat footprint. There can be no doubt of this, since in his diagram Guede's foot is too wide to fit the footprint.

If you have an argument that addresses the clear points I made and shows how my reasoning is flawed, go ahead and post it. I did double check the calculations I made, but I'd welcome corrections if you can spot an error.

Oops, got size and measurement back to face. I meant size 45..46 in fact.

I've already said why tour reasoning is flawed, but I'll repeat it once again just for you. In order to get Rudy's print to fit the print on the mat and in the corridor it has to be shrunk down to 22.5 cm. Thus is patently absurd. Therefore, it is not Rudy's print. No amount of sophistry can change that.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hi Katy, Guede's reference footprint is about 22.5cm overall. Sollecito's somewhat shorter, but the difference is in the heel. Both reference prints are about 10 percent too big for the bathmat. But Guede's foot has the right shape, with the big toe and the narrow instep. I think the most likely explanation is that he didn't put his full weight on the step when he made the print on the mat, so it's a little smaller than the ink print he made for police.

Kermit was bugging me about this last fall, so I emailed him a picture of Guede's reference print with the dimensions as marked by Rinaldi. That was the last I heard from him.

It's important to fit all this evidence into some kind of scenario. The luminol footprints in the hallway don't fit with any scenario linking them to the crime. Basically Rinaldi says one of two right footprints found just outside Amanda's door has a "probable identity" match with Sollecito. If that's the case, then what happened? Did he hop on one foot to the point in front of Amanda's door? The luminol footprint in the hallway which Rinaldi says is a "probable identity" match with Amanda is just outside the doorway to Meredith's room with the toes pointed directly toward that doorway. What did she do, step in blood and then hop backwards into the hallway?

The luminol artifacts are unrelated to the crime. The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up in the bathroom. He rinsed his right shoe under the bidet, leaving a trace of blood in the drain of the bidet, and while his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print, either because he was wearing a bloody sock, or because he stepped on a blood-soaked towel.

All the evidence fits together neatly if one simply acknowledges that this was a sexual homicide committed, as most such crimes are, by a disturbed young man acting alone.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm sorry, I meant to say that Guede's footprint is about 25cm

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hi Katy, Guede's reference footprint is about 22.5cm overall. Sollecito's somewhat shorter, but the difference is in the heel. Both reference prints are about 10 percent too big for the bathmat. But Guede's foot has the right shape, with the big toe and the narrow instep. I think the most likely explanation is that he didn't put his full weight on the step when he made the print on the mat, so it's a little smaller than the ink print he made for police.

Kermit was bugging me about this last fall, so I emailed him a picture of Guede's reference print with the dimensions as marked by Rinaldi. That was the last I heard from him.

It's important to fit all this evidence into some kind of scenario. The luminol footprints in the hallway don't fit with any scenario linking them to the crime. Basically Rinaldi says one of two right footprints found just outside Amanda's door has a "probable identity" match with Sollecito. If that's the case, then what happened? Did he hop on one foot to the point in front of Amanda's door? The luminol footprint in the hallway which Rinaldi says is a "probable identity" match with Amanda is just outside the doorway to Meredith's room with the toes pointed directly toward that doorway. What did she do, step in blood and then hop backwards into the hallway?

The luminol artifacts are unrelated to the crime. The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up in the bathroom. He rinsed his right shoe under the bidet, leaving a trace of blood in the drain of the bidet, and while his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print, either because he was wearing a bloody sock, or because he stepped on a blood-soaked towel.

All the evidence fits together neatly if one simply acknowledges that this was a sexual homicide committed, as most such crimes are, by a disturbed young man acting alone.

So, where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

link

I'm sorry, I meant to say that Guede's footprint is about 25cm

www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

 

[snook1]

The footprint belongs to...
the 66.7mm number shown below is wrong. The correct measurement should be about 55mm (versus 57mm on Raffaelle's reference footprint)

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Katy, Guede's reference footprint is about 22.5cm overall. Sollecito's somewhat shorter, but the difference is in the heel. Both reference prints are about 10 percent too big for the bathmat. But Guede's foot has the right shape, with the big toe and the narrow instep. I think the most likely explanation is that he didn't put his full weight on the step when he made the print on the mat, so it's a little smaller than the ink print he made for police.

Kermit was bugging me about this last fall, so I emailed him a picture of Guede's reference print with the dimensions as marked by Rinaldi. That was the last I heard from him.

It's important to fit all this evidence into some kind of scenario. The luminol footprints in the hallway don't fit with any scenario linking them to the crime. Basically Rinaldi says one of two right footprints found just outside Amanda's door has a "probable identity" match with Sollecito. If that's the case, then what happened? Did he hop on one foot to the point in front of Amanda's door? The luminol footprint in the hallway which Rinaldi says is a "probable identity" match with Amanda is just outside the doorway to Meredith's room with the toes pointed directly toward that doorway. What did she do, step in blood and then hop backwards into the hallway?

The luminol artifacts are unrelated to the crime. The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up in the bathroom. He rinsed his right shoe under the bidet, leaving a trace of blood in the drain of the bidet, and while his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print, either because he was wearing a bloody sock, or because he stepped on a blood-soaked towel.

All the evidence fits together neatly if one simply acknowledges that this was a sexual homicide committed, as most such crimes are, by a disturbed young man acting alone.

Oh, like a bad penny....I thought you were off helping dig the escape tunnel under Capanne Wilkes? We miss you over on PMF...we haven't heard about Pitted Windshield Syndrome in such a long time.

You are kidding right? the footprint in the corridor is IDENTICAL to the print on the bath mat, they are the same print made by the same person! Raffaele Sollecito. If anyone doubts, just superimpose them.

Rudy Guede's print is far too big for that print or its brother in the corridor. They are not even close to being a match.

You're not still going on with that washing a trainer in the bidet nonsense?

If so Wilkes, let me know and I'll rip the scenario apart in my next post, just as I have on previous occasions.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well Katy_did, I have a response for you from Kermit

Kermit's PowerPoints on the footprints have always seemed flawed to me for a few reasons. The first is that, as has been said, he assumes that the size of a footprint is the same size as the foot that made it, when in fact it's likely to be a couple of centimetres shorter. This fact alone means all his measurements are significantly out.

Hi Katy, in my first powerpoint presentations concerning the bloody footprints (the luminol prints and the visible print on the bathmat), my main objective - as stated - was to demonstrate that there was no "lone wolf" in the cottage on the night of the Meredith Kercher's brutal murder.



I fully admit now and I admitted then in those powerpoints that my measurements could be out. However, any errors in estimating dimensions would be applicable to all measurements in relation to each other.



And in fact, I think that literally by any measurement, it's clear that there was more than one wolf in the cottage, i.e. that there are several different sized footprint made in blood.

Guede's foot is actually SMALLER in the forefoot region than Sollecito's: 96mm x 55.5mm versus 99mm x 57mm. The claim repeated here and elsewhere that Guede's foot is "too big" to fit the bathmat footprint is, simply and straightforwardly, false.

Your information concerning Charlie Wilkes' assessment of Dr. Rinaldi's measurements is of minor interest, but it reminds me of other Stop-Press announcements by pro-Knox proselytizers: in the summer of 2008, as the investigation came to a close and the defence camps had the opportunity to introduce their own allegations and evidence into the case, Charlie kept making noise about how Amanda had been allegedly physically abused in her questioning on the night of 5 November 2007 (Knox supporters hadn't yet puffed up that questioning to 40 or 50 hours).



In the on-line debates we kept telling Charlie that if he had any news concerning such physical abuse, he should urgently contact Amanda's lawyers, so that this extremely important news could be included in the pre-trial and trial procedures. It didn't happen. Amanda's lawyers in fact denied at that point that she had been physically abused (strangely enough, once the trial was underway, and coinciding with a visit to Perugia by her step-father, Amanda made a spontaneous statement in court - probably to her own lawyers' surprise - and referred to such abuse. That acccusation is now being investigated, but probably not in benefit of Amanda's cause.)



In the same way, Judge Michael Heavey wrote Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, amongst others, about alleged criminal irregularities in the investigation of the murder, yet did not present any documentation concerning these accusations. He later preferred to decline travelling to Italy to attend the trial as a character witness for Amanda, a good decision in my opinion.



So, as regards Charlie's foot measurements, I would urge him to send Amanda's or Raffaele's Italian lawyers any information he has which contradicts Rinaldi's measurements, and if this information is of use to prove their innocence, I'm sure they'll make good use of it.



The fact that Rinaldi's measurements were part of the famous 10 thousand pages (or more?) of pre-trial documentation that was picked apart for months by two separate and heavily populated expensive hot-shot legal teams makes me think that Charlie's observations won't change the footprint measurements.



I personally would prefer that the pro-Knox supporters deal with much more worrisome issues, like the fact that Raffaele's alibi has Amanda leaving his flat for 3 - 4 hours on the night of Meredith's murder, while Amanda's alibi puts her in his flat all night, observing things like fish blood on Raffaele's hands.

This leaves a real problem with Kermit's PowerPoints, which clearly show Guede's foot overlapping the bathmat footprint at the sides. How is this possible, when we know Guede's foot is only 96mm in width - actually a few millimetres narrower than the bathmat print?



.... My conclusions: (1) Guede's footprint is certainly NOT "too big" to fit the bathmat footprint, and (2) Kermit really has no business accusing anyone of distorting anything."



"My above measurements are all checkable, of course, but I also did a very quick re-arrangement of one of Kermit's PP slides in order to use his own ruler to demonstrate that Guede's foot is much too wide.



.... Kermit has distorted Guede's footprint so that it is too big to fit the bathmat footprint. There can be no doubt of this, since in his diagram Guede's foot is too wide to fit the footprint.



If you have an argument that addresses the clear points I made and shows how my reasoning is flawed, go ahead and post it.

I have no problem entertaining all possibilities, and I have no problem recognising any possible errors on my part.



I have shrunk Rudy's footprint (grey foot) to 96 mm wide and placed it over the FOA Pink Hobbit Foot, as displayed prominently on the FOA page as indicative of Rudy's guilt.



The grey foot does go down in length (and there could just be an "overhang" explanation to justify that length). However, as you can see, Rudy's foot at 96 mm wide continues to be substantially longer than FOA's artificially short pink foot (23 cm.) which they ascribe to Rudy in order to try to show feebly that he could have made the bathmat footprint.

And Kermit also has something for Wilkes:

Kermit was bugging me about this last fall, so I emailed him a picture of Guede's reference print with the dimensions as marked by Rinaldi. That was the last I heard from him.

Hi Charlie. Good to hear from you. I had understood that you had requested that our interchanges of email and graphic material be kept in confidence, but since you refer to them, I should say that the last email was in fact from me to you.



In that mail on last 3 July 2009, I told you on examining your image of Rudy's print, that "My first observation, however, is that the 251 mm measurement - which may well be accurate - is not a police measurement, but rather your own extrapolation based on other measured foot characteristics"



You didn't reply to that observation.

It's important to fit all this evidence into some kind of scenario. The luminol footprints in the hallway don't fit with any scenario linking them to the crime .... The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up in the bathroom. He rinsed his right shoe under the bidet, leaving a trace of blood in the drain of the bidet, and while his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print

I don't understand why the luminol footprints don't fit any scenario. In fact, they fit the scenario that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage.



Knox supporters who suggest that Rudy made bloody shoe prints in Meredith's room, then took off his shoes in the bathroom to wash them, "inking" his bare feet with blood, leaving a partial bare foot print on the bathmat through some sort of "blotting" action, putting on his clean shoes, then getting them bloody again, and then runnning out of the house ... well those people are asking us to do some serious mental and logical gymnastics, and ask Rudy to have done some acrobatic twists reminiscent of the game "Twister".

All the evidence fits together neatly if one simply acknowledges that this was a sexual homicide committed, as most such crimes are, by a disturbed young man acting alone.

When you say "all the evidence", I see you mean "some of the evidence", as you exclude Amanda's and Raffaele's contradictory alibis, eye and ear witnesses who saw them near the cottage or heard more than one person at the crime scene, different sized foot measurements, telephone records which contradict their statements, along with a long list of other evidence which points to more than just a "disturbed young man acting alone".

 

[snook1]

Kermit:
eye and ear witnesses who saw them near the cottage or heard more than one person at the crime scene

Yeah, drug addict and old woman who heard some screams and running.
Kermit's efforts are great, though he's more sure of his results than the police investigators and print experts will ever be and he's never been to that bathroom. He only got few pictures.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yeah, drug addict and old woman who heard some screams and running.
Kermit's efforts are great, though he's more sure of his results than the police investigators and print experts will ever be and he's never been to that bathroom. He only got few pictures.

...and yet...

Every Judge the duo has appeared before has agreed with Kermit's assessment...

 

[snook1]

...and yet...

Every Judge the duo has appeared before has agreed with Kermit's assessment...

Well, yeah, after all they're all human. And the every Judge bit is funny, it's not like there have been thousands of them you know. Let's just wait for the appeal.