Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, anyone can look at the photos above and see three distinctive similarities between the bathmat print and Guede's:

1. The big toe is the same exact shape as Rudy's and completely different from Sollecitio's.

2. You can even see where Rudy's foot is cleft between the big toe and second toe (what looks like a triangular indentation on the ball of his foot).

3. Rudy's reference print leaves a mark between the pad of the big toe and where it connects to the ball of the foot. Sollecito's does not. The bathmat print has that imprint. Sollecito's does not.

Anything beyond simply using one's eyes to look and compare the the three prints is excessive and I find your exhaustive attempt to make the print look like Rudy's to be a prime example of obfuscation. It simply doesn't need that much explanation. It's obvious who the print belongs to.

Reality often tends to contain something beyond what some people perceive as obvious at a first glance.

For 1., I didn’t find this correspondence, as the overlap shows. The shape looks similar, but only at a first glance. There is something that doesn’t add up. There are protuberances unexplained on the top and top left, and other spots showing a too indented margin. The position is also not exactly Rudy’s, considering the rest of the print. But above all, the mark of a “second toe” incorporated in that shape is unexplained.
About 2., there is nothing decisive on the upper outline in my opinion, while I note the fact that the ball of his foot is wider if I consider it – as can only be – as coincident the existing outline of the bathmat print. Rudy’s ball of foot has a larger area and has a different shape.
3. is a very outstanding feature of the bathmat print, but it is also the most deceitful. Sollecito’s foot can produce a print with the big toe leaving a mark separated from the ball of foot (leaving only a tiny mark in between). Guede’s foot cannot. This separation in Sollecito’s print that can be produced, for sure on a flat and hard surface. But Sollecito’s big toe is anyway connected with the rest of the foot: can we say that, in different conditions – like a soft material, uneven surface with embossed parts – Sollecito’s foot can’t produce an imprint of that kind? Vinci defines this peculiarity of Sollecito’s foot like this: “modestissimo appoggio della prima falange dell’alluce” (a “very light” balance by the first phalanx of the big toe), a contact, but a very light press. Is it logical to think that this peculiarity is determinant in producing the same print on any surface? What happens if the surface is not hard? So to allow more contact also on areas of lesser pressure?

I see the shape of the ball of the foot. It has a definite outline, the arch follows a clear shape. Do you see this shape?

 

[Chris C]

Yeah, seriously, that high contrast photo Yummi posted contradicts his/her entire argument. How can you look at these three photos and not see which two are the same?

[qimg]http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6517/guedeprint.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/411/bathmatprinthicontrast.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/387/sollecitoprint.jpg[/qimg]

Not only that but I've taken the liberty of outlining the front of his foot also. It more closely resembles Guede's.

I've also drawn an arrow which points to a dark section thats not blood. There are plenty of those little dark blue spots all over the mat.

 

[Chris C]

Just to chime in on the whole phone call debate, I'd be interested in knowing what Katody et al think Edda meant by saying "...but nothing had happened yet" when taped conversing with Amanda about the call. Why did Edda describe the call this way? Could it be because when Amanda called her she told her mother only very little of the strange things she found at the house. Perhaps she had not mentioned the broken window at this point, or much else besides finding an open door and a couple of blood stains in the bathroom, hence her mother saying"...nothing had happened yet". If she had told her mother all this it's unlikely to be described as "nothing had happened yet", when in fact plenty had happened.

Also, Amanda's insistence on her utter lack of memory of this call could simply be because she and her lawyers were unwilling for her to be questioned on its content, on exactly what she told Edda in that call to leave her mother thinking that nothing had happened yet. Edda's own testimony on the stand about this call makes one wonder why she would ever have described it as 'before anything had happened yet' given the amount of detail she says Amanda relayed in an 88 second call.

I think Comodi zones in on this call to get from Amanda why she would call her mother, waking her from sleep, before she had even called the police, given all that had actually happened by this point. The broken window was discovered, Meredith's was nowhere to be found and her door was locked, there was blood and feces in the apartment, and the front door had been found open. Amanda was standing next to her Italian boyfriend who could have easily dialed the number and relayed the info to the police but that didn't happen right away, Amanda calls her mom first. Sorry, but that just seems strange to me too, and all the emphasis placed on the evil intent behind the 12:00 or 12:47 time as stated by Comodi these last ten or so pages only serves as a distraction and a way to avoid discussing the real issues around this call.

The call, if able to be described as Edda described it as "...but nothing had happened yet", really could be the beginnings of trying to establish an alibi.

There's always two ways of looking at something and it seems that what one believes about this call is completely entrenched in one's view of innocence or guilt. The 'innocentisti' only see it as Comodi deliberately attempting to mislead the jury, even though Amanda's lawyers have prepared her for her testimony, and even though they know all evidence to be presented in advance through discovery, and even though they have wads of paper relating to the evidence sitting on the tables in front of them, no one catches the evil tactics of Comodi that serve to let the jury think Amanda made this call some 47 minutes before she did, at a time when "nothing had happened yet".

On the other side, Amanda won't admit to this call because it would probably incriminate her to be examined on it, it was her feeble attempt at creating the start of an alibi, and Edda lied on the stand to cover for her daughter because she's the only person other than Amanda who knows exactly what Amanda said in that phone call to her mother, when she should have been calling the police instead.

Personally, I'm really not positive of either interpretation.

The problem with saying nothing has happened yet is what do you consider nothing. The prosecution claims that when Knox called her mother nothing had happened yet. Then they say her mother confirms this. So is the prosecution wrong when they say Knox called her mother at 1200/midday and nothing had happened yet? How many people need to call the police? How many times did a concerned Filomena call Meredith? When Sollecito called his sister was he talking to the police? Its obvious at this point that Sollecito was taking care of the situation and was in charge. Knox seemed concerned. Concerned Knox calls her mother. Sollecito calls his sister to ask some advice. Then Sollecito calls the cops. Why would knox need to call the police, when her boyfriend speaks ITALIAN and can do it for her. If knox calls the police they are going to need an interpreter. I'm a Man and from past experience I can tell you one thing. Woman will make you call the police or confront the problem, while they are talking to their mother on the phone.

 

[Malkmus]

I see the shape of the ball of the foot. It has a definite outline, the arch follows a clear shape. Do you see this shape?

Yes, I see how the ball of the foot on Rudy's print follows a straight line down to the point where it begins to arch, whereas Raf's ball of the foot juts outwards to the left before the arch begins. The ball of the foot on the bathmat print, like Rudy's, follows a straight line down to the point where the arch starts. Again, you've just pointed out another distinction between Raf's print and the bathmat one.

How do you explain that Raf has a very distinct, unusual big toe that looks nothing like the bathmat big toe, but exactly like Rudy's?

 

[Machiavelli]

There's always two ways of looking at something and it seems that what one believes about this call is completely entrenched in one's view of innocence or guilt. The 'innocentisti' only see it as Comodi deliberately attempting to mislead the jury, even though Amanda's lawyers have prepared her for her testimony, and even though they know all evidence to be presented in advance through discovery, and even though they have wads of paper relating to the evidence sitting on the tables in front of them, no one catches the evil tactics of Comodi that serve to let the jury think Amanda made this call some 47 minutes before she did, at a time when "nothing had happened yet".

In fact, I agree and that context is what goes unnoticed by the innocentisti. In addition to all this, we can just consider that Comodi is the prosecution, somebody who actually believes that nothing has happened in a more literal sense, and accuses Amanda of lying when she recalls what happened in that time. The locution "nothing had happened yet", moreover, already has been used by others to define the time of the same call.

On the other hand, arguments based on "the lawyer suggested" explanation are non convincing to me. Defendants may well give answers resulting from attorney coaching, but what is to be considered is that if attorney suggest their client to lie in giving an answer or behave suspiciously, there must be a reason for why they cannot suggest them to do differently and be "clean". The ground of this suggestion must be a defensive difficulty, so there is anyway an issue behind.

 

[Malkmus]

Not only that but I've taken the liberty of outlining the front of his foot also. It more closely resembles Guede's.

I've also drawn an arrow which points to a dark section thats not blood. There are plenty of those little dark blue spots all over the mat.

Yes, where you have the arrow pointing to is that distinct "cleft" I mentioned which is also in Rudy's reference print. Trying to make that print Raf's is almost laughable at this point.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not only that but I've taken the liberty of outlining the front of his foot also. It more closely resembles Guede's.

I've also drawn an arrow which points to a dark section thats not blood. There are plenty of those little dark blue spots all over the mat.

There are also plenty of blood stains all over the mat, for that.
I think some spots are not "dark", I think they are red and different, and they appear to me connected to the main print. The superior outline appears to me not so similar to Guede's print when overlapped:

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not positive they are guilty. Nor am I positive they are innocent. I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on either possibility.

My experience has been that if you start from the assumption that they might be innocent you find all sorts of things that suggest they weren't at the murder scene at all, and the prosecution trying to prove they were went to absurd lengths to get there. The police got the real killer, the fault was in assuming that instead of an interrupted break-in they instead found a salacious sex-murder scene and tried to tie Amanda and Raffaele into it because they looked 'suspicious.'

Your mileage may vary. I am one of those who always reserves the right to change my mind when presented with a good reason for doing so.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, where you have the arrow pointing to is that distinct "cleft" I mentioned which is also in Rudy's reference print. Trying to make that print Raf's is almost laughable at this point.

What about this "cleft" ?

 

[Chris C]

There are also plenty of blood stains all over the mat, for that.
I think some spots are not "dark", I think they are red and different, and they appear to me connected to the main print. The superior outline appears to me not so similar to Guede's print when overlapped:

[qimg]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/5106872043_45c593c671.jpg[/qimg]

Ok so you think some of the red is connected to the main print. Then lets not forget this big red dot that could have ONLY be left by Guede's toe, since Sollecito's toe is to short.

 

[Malkmus]

What about this "cleft" ?

I think you're trying too hard.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you're trying too hard.

Do you prefer these two "hills" ?

 

[Chris C]

What about this "cleft" ?

View attachment 19843

View attachment 19844

View attachment 19845

Heres 3 toes and a cleft. Whose it look more like? Look at the shape of the outside toe. It doesn't make a sharp turn inside like Sollecito's print.

 

[Magister]

deleted

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Ooh careful. That's actually NOT true. If the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convince the court of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should not have been convicted. Regardless of whether they actually were involved in the murder or not. That's how justice operates these days.

As an example, I became convinced that Barry George was wrongly convicted of the high-profile murder of Jill Dando in the UK. His conviction was subsequently overturned and he was found not guilty in a retrial - correctly, in my opinion. Yet I still believe, on balance, that he likely did commit the murder. And I have no trouble whatsoever in reconciling these two beliefs.

It's plain and simple: if there's not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed a given crime (and assuming the person does not confess), then that person should not be convicted of that crime, regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not.

What makes you think Barry George killed Dando? I don't think so, because if he had, it would have been as the last act in a stalking campaign and it wouldn't have been a quick, clean execution-style hit. I'm inclined to suspect that staple of European chaos - the Serbian patriot.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm trying to evaluate your work on PMF but it's not easy because you have used at least three different scales and the contour of the traced outline is subtly different in each image.

 

[Justinian2]

Since we can't decide whose footprint that was, let's just throw both in jail and be sure. No discrimination that way.

I think it was Guede's footprint by a toe! Guede is the winner by a 60-40 score. That's the way this armchair official makes the call.

 

[Chris C]

Since we can't decide whose footprint that was, let's just throw both in jail and be sure. No discrimination that way.

I think it was Guede's footprint by a toe! Guede is the winner by a 60-40 score. That's the way this armchair official makes the call.

Though if the prosecution believes this footprint is Sollecito then then how can they believe Guede told the truth about seeing Sollecito and Knox there. Afterall Guede's testimony is in direct contradiction with the Footprint. Since Sollecito would have had to stab him with the knife first. Then Guede go check on Meredith. Then Guede go to bathroom where the footprint is found and grab towels. Then bring towels back to Meredith while she slowly dies and speaks two letters with her last breath.
Where was Sollecito standing during all this time after fighting with Guede? From what I gathered from Guede testimony, Sollecito fled the scene with knox before Rudy fled the scene. So he would have had to run out of the apartment with bloody barefeet while Knox was standing outside yelling between 10 and 10:30 pm. Yet no one on the street notices Knox yelling or sees Sollecito or Knox. Plus if you convict Rudy of the Murder then allowing his testimony in court saying he had nothing to do with Murder contradicts his conviction. So basicly the Prosecution has presented lies to the court.

 

[Dan O.]

The dimensions marked on the reference photos should have been more accurate but I used the average of these dimensions to scale the reference photos to the same scale as the bathmat photo (the known erronious 66.7mm dimension was not used).

It would be nice if there were validation for these scales. This is the best I have at this time.

 

[RoseMontague]

The dimensions marked on the reference photos should have been more accurate but I used the average of these dimensions to scale the reference photos to the same scale as the bathmat photo (the known erronious 66.7mm dimension was not used).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=3970[/qimg]


It would be nice if there were validation for these scales. This is the best I have at this time.

Thanks Dan O.
To me it looks more like Rudy's. I would tend to exclude Raffaele's because I just don't see it as possible that the big toe/second toe area in the bathmath print could be his. On what basis did the prosecution expert decide that Rudy's print could be excluded as a possibility?