Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

The appeal points out courts error in dismissing Vinci's conclusion.

The prints were photographed in darkness, but without fluorescent measuring tapes, as it is recommended. Thus it was then necessary to assess the sizes based on intermediate measurements i.e. the tile size - photographed in light. The problem is that the prints were not photographed orthogonally, as recommended, but at an angle, so a perspective correction was needed. It's not easy when you have a photo made in the dark without clear landmarks or reference points.

Rinaldi first measured the print in such indirect way as 227 mm. Then corrected himself and made it 245 mm.
The court thrown out Vinci's 215 mm result on the basis that Rinaldi was first wrong with his perspective assessment, so Vinci must have had wrong data.

But the truth is that Vinci made his own perspective correction, using specialized software and selected reference photos. So his measurement was thrown out on a nonsensical basis.

 

[tsig]

Shall we have a new title also - we did last time.

Perhaps a poll would be in order.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of an internalized false confession

Amanda Knox guilty - No, it was the african one shoed man.

Amanda Knox guilty - No, she's not the type.

Amanda Knox guilty - Its Dreyfus all over again [I tell ya]

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Mignini

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Comodi's lies.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a virtual parade

Amanda Knox guilty - all because ....I dont care - she's pretty.

Amanda Knox guilty - Another thread ? you're really juicing the piglet on this.

.

Amanda Knox: Innocent Abroad

 

[katy_did]

The motivations believes the footprint to be compatible with Rinaldi's measurements rather than Vinci's.

Finally, one more aspect of the report is not shared by the Court.

This concerns the moment in which Professor Vinci, although he noted that the consultancy of Dr Rinaldi performed the correct perspective adjustments on the tiles, illustrated during the hearing of May 9, 2009 and yielding a larger length for the Luminol-positive print (calculated as 245 mm with Sollecito's footprint measuring 246mm), concluded as though the uncorrected data from the previous report remained valid and unmodified.

This led the technical consultant to consider the print only 215mm long (which it is not), and consequently to judge that it came from a foot of that length, a good 3cm less than the foot of the accused, with a shoe size between 36 and 37.

Pages 355-356:

As Katody says, the defence response on this is to state that while the scientific police obtained the measurements of the footprint by using a photograph which wasn't shot perpendicularly (and which therefore needed to be adjusted to take account of that) Vinci used a different photograph which was taken perpendicularly and carried out his own measurements based on that. The sentencing report assumed that Vinci's calculations would need to be adjusted in the same way as those of the scientific police, but in fact this wasn't the case (pages 185-6 of Sollecito's appeal):

[T]he sentencing report did not consider that the defence consultant carried out his measurements independently: the length of the footprint need not be re-evaluated in light of ‘perspective correction’. In other words, the adjustment of the scientific police's data does not in any way affect Prof Vinci's measurements, who acted totally independently with calculations and procedures which were always correct.

The Court, then, inexplicably and erroneously evaluated the measurements of the defence consultant in light of the perspective corrections carried out by the scientific police.

They then go on to say that while the scientific police adjusted their original measurement of the length of the footprint from 227mm to 244mm, they weren't able to explain how they'd arrived at the new measurement, nor which program they'd used to carry it out (if any):

Dr. Rinaldi, questioned at length by the defence (pages from 77 to 98, transcript of hearing 9.05.2009) in order to obtain clarification on the elongation of the footprint, was never able to provide a response which would have technically justified the measurements obtained. (...)

It is not acceptable to maintain that the print was elongated “in some way”: if there was a scientific method for elongating it, Dr. Rinaldi should have explained what that was.

The elongation of the luminol print from a much smaller size to one which coincidentally matched Raffaele's foot (apparently without any explanation as to how the calculations were carried out) reminds me of the adjustment of the big toe measurement on the bathmat footprint, so that the width coincidentally matched that of Raffaele's toe.

 

[LondonJohn]

___________________________

Hmmmm. Pretty strong words, Katody Matrass. And crisply spoken. Do you know that your position flatly contradicts Massei's position on this matter? Here's what Massei said (page 49):

"He [a burglar] would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside...."

Since Massei had some familiarity with that window, he must have had some grounds for saying this. And yet, I suppose, you have some grounds for your remarkable comment, too. Do you happen to know the distance between the grating and the latch that held the window casements together? If you can provide us with that distance, each of us can conduct our our private experiment at home.

///

Massei also said when accepting Capezzali's ear-witness testimony: "If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."

So I don't think we can rely on Massei's reasoning in general as robust, and far less as inviolate....

/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\

 

[RWVBWL]

__________________

Umm, no smearing found anywhere? John, you may wish to look at the luminol-reacting bare footprint shown in image #33 of the Rinaldi Report, HERE . Looks like a textbook example of smearing to me.

///

Hello there Fine,
I would luv to see what you do in the photographs you linked...

I keep in mind that Amanda Knox walked barefoot, with probable wet/damp feet, in their apartment before Meredith's brutal, bloody murder was discovered.

Soon afterwards, Raffaele Sollecito entered into the apartment.

And then 2 Postal Police officers showed up, Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi.

So did Filomena Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli,
Luca Altieri and his girlfriend Paola Grande.

And after Meredith Kercher was discovered brutally stabbed to death and sexually assaulted, a doctor and a nurse from 118 showed up too as Mary H so kindly reminded us in post 16196...

What do all of these 10 different people have in common?
None of them were wearing any kind of protectivce gear.
So I find the fact that there was blood found that was possibly smeared to be of ?able importance.

As we are not in a court of law, but just curiously discussing this brutal murder that took the life of a wonderful gal named Meredith Kercher, I ask:
Why do you see something different in a possible smeared bloodstain than I?
Just wondering...
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

As Katody says, the defence response on this is to state that while the scientific police obtained the measurements of the footprint by using a photograph which wasn't shot perpendicularly (and which therefore needed to be adjusted to take account of that) Vinci used a different photograph which was taken perpendicularly and carried out his own measurements based on that. The sentencing report assumed that Vinci's calculations would need to be adjusted in the same way as those of the scientific police, but in fact this wasn't the case (pages 185-6 of Sollecito's appeal):



They then go on to say that while the scientific police adjusted their original measurement of the length of the footprint from 227mm to 244mm, they weren't able to explain how they'd arrived at the new measurement, nor which program they'd used to carry it out (if any):


The elongation of the luminol print from a much smaller size to one which coincidentally matched Raffaele's foot (apparently without any explanation as to how the calculations were carried out) reminds me of the adjustment of the big toe measurement on the bathmat footprint, so that the width coincidentally matched that of Raffaele's toe.

Let's hope (and assume) that Claudio Pratillo Hellmann's powers of reasoning are at least up to the job in hand. Cos the previous guy seemed to be....er....a little deficient in this department.

 

[Katody Matrass]

___________________________

Hmmmm. Pretty strong words, Katody Matrass. And crisply spoken. Do you know that your position flatly contradicts Massei's position on this matter?

Sure, but that's expected.

Since Massei had some familiarity with that window, he must have had some grounds for saying this.

He has no grounds for most things he say. Prosecution never argued it was impossible to climb to that window. If they were so sure about it (and they weren't) they would order an experiment to nail the defense, but it would be an obvious failure for them.

And yet, I suppose, you have some grounds for your remarkable comment, too. Do you happen to know the distance between the grating and the latch that held the window casements together? If you can provide us with that distance, each of us can conduct our our private experiment at home.

A guy standing on the grating has the windowsill at armpit level. Rudy's arm reach would be 70-80 cm from the armpit. There's more then enough to reach the latch with his fingers without straining himself. If his arms are remarkably short he still can extend himself on his toes or place one foot on the ridge above.

 

[katy_did]

Let's hope (and assume) that Claudio Pratillo Hellmann's powers of reasoning are at least up to the job in hand. Cos the previous guy seemed to be....er....a little deficient in this department.

At times I'm not sure whether to be charitable and assume that Massei deliberately set up some of this reasoning to be overturned at appeal...

 

[LondonJohn]

Hello there Fine,
I would luv to see what you do in the photographs you linked...

I keep in mind that Amanda Knox walked barefoot, with probable wet/damp feet, in their apartment before Meredith's brutal, bloody murder was discovered.

Soon afterwards, Raffaele Sollecito entered into the apartment.

And then 2 Postal Police officers showed up, Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi.

So did Filomena Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli,
Luca Altieri and his girlfriend Paola Grande.

And after Meredith Kercher was discovered brutally stabbed to death and sexually assaulted, a doctor and a nurse from 118 showed up too as Mary H so kindly reminded us in post 16196...

What do all of these 10 different people have in common?
None of them were wearing any kind of protectivce gear.
So I find the fact that there was blood found that was possibly smeared to be of ?able importance.

As we are not in a court of law, but just curiously discussing this brutal murder that took the life of a wonderful gal named Meredith Kercher, I ask:
Why do you see something different in a possible smeared bloodstain than I?
Just wondering...
RWVBWL

Hey there! Hope you're well, and not reading the insults on the other forum.

As I pointed out earlier, the blurring is totally due to camera shake during the long-exposure luminol photography - another forensics mistake, since a firm tripod and remote shutter release should always be used in such a situation to get a sharp shot.

But of course you're correct about the amount of foot traffic in that hallway during November 2nd 2007. And in addition to all the people you've mentioned, the assorted throng of the "crack forensics team walked all over the hallway in their booties for quite some time before someone noticed that there was potential evidence on the floor...

 

[Katody Matrass]

They then go on to say that while the scientific police adjusted their original measurement of the length of the footprint from 227mm to 244mm, they weren't able to explain how they'd arrived at the new measurement, nor which program they'd used to carry it out (if any):


The elongation of the luminol print from a much smaller size to one which coincidentally matched Raffaele's foot (apparently without any explanation as to how the calculations were carried out) reminds me of the adjustment of the big toe measurement on the bathmat footprint, so that the width coincidentally matched that of Raffaele's toe.

Thanks katy_did, you're invaluable!

 

[LondonJohn]

At times I'm not sure whether to be charitable and assume that Massei deliberately set up some of this reasoning to be overturned at appeal...

Ooh you dreadful conspiracy theorist you!

 

[Machiavelli]

The appeal points out courts error in dismissing Vinci's conclusion.

The prints were photographed in darkness, but without fluorescent measuring tapes, as it is recommended. Thus it was then necessary to assess the sizes based on intermediate measurements i.e. the tile size - photographed in light. The problem is that the prints were not photographed orthogonally, as recommended, but at an angle, so a perspective correction was needed. It's not easy when you have a photo made in the dark without clear landmarks or reference points.

Rinaldi first measured the print in such indirect way as 227 mm. Then corrected himself and made it 245 mm.
The court thrown out Vinci's 215 mm result on the basis that Rinaldi was first wrong with his perspective assessment, so Vinci must have had wrong data.

But the truth is that Vinci made his own perspective correction, using specialized software and selected reference photos. So his measurement was thrown out on a nonsensical basis.

Unfortunately I cannot share your certainity about what Vinci wrote, because I don't have Vinci's report.

What is written in the appeal contains a few outstanding contradictions. Among them, the assertion that Vinci made his measurements by chosing a picture taken perpendicularly.
Besides the fact it is impossible to know if a picture is taken perpendicularly, Vinci's applies his measurements to a print that appears in picture that was not taken perpendicularly. And, on this picture, the defense asserts that no prospective correction should have been done.
Either there is a failure in the Appeal document in explaining Vinci's reasoning properly, or there is a logic hole.
The measurements process and the process of perspective correction performed by Vinci appear totally unclear in this Appeal - albeit the text asserts they are clear - and they are instead associated with this basic contradiction.

Vinci also takes a few measurements about a tile asserting they are "correct", and those data appear obviously ridiculous since theyr error is below the sixth decimal of millimtere, almost a molecular level.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But of course you're correct about the amount of foot traffic in that hallway during November 2nd 2007. And in addition to all the people you've mentioned, the assorted throng of the "crack forensics team walked all over the hallway in their booties for quite some time before someone noticed that there was potential evidence on the floor...

I may be wrong but IIRC the luminol traces were photographed on 17 Dec.

 

[LondonJohn]

I may be wrong but IIRC the luminol traces were photographed on 17 Dec.

I believe you're right. But I'm generously assuming that once someone from the forensics team finally noticed that there might be print evidence on the floor in the hallway, the area was secured and protected from then on. In hindsight though, this may indeed be an over-generous assumption on my part...

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately I cannot share your certainity about what Vinci wrote, because I don't have Vinci's report.

What is written in the appeal contains a few outstanding contradictions. Among them, the assertion that Vinci made his measurements by chosing a picture taken perpendicularly.
Besides the fact it is impossible to know if a picture is taken perpendicularly, Vinci's applies his measurements to a print that appears in picture that was not taken perpendicularly. And, on this picture, the defense asserts that no prospective correction should have been done.
Either there is a failure in the Appeal document in explaining Vinci's reasoning properly, or there is a logic hole.
The measurements process and the process of perspective correction performed by Vinci appear totally unclear in this Appeal - albeit the text asserts they are clear - and they are instead associated with this basic contradiction.

Vinci also takes a few measurements about a tile asserting they are "correct", and those data appear obviously ridiculous since theyr error is below the sixth decimal of millimtere, almost a molecular level.

It's extraordinarily easy to tell if a photograph of a tiled floor was taken perpendicularly, when one knows the dimensions of the tiles. Try it some time.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let's hope (and assume) that Claudio Pratillo Hellmann's powers of reasoning are at least up to the job in hand. Cos the previous guy seemed to be....er....a little deficient in this department.

I doubt they could be great to the point of formulating a reasonable alternative scenario for doubt about how the luminol prints were produced, where Amanda jumps barefoot in leaps of 2 meters (straight and in angls) on her right foot to produce the prints in the corridoor and in her room, and the drops in Filomena's room, and a shoeprint, after having walked somewhere in a solution of copper salt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Time for this thread to be closed and a new one started surely ?

Good to see you posting on this topic, Fiona. Do you have a new title in mind?

 

[LondonJohn]

I doubt they could be great to the point of formulating a reasonable alternative scenario for doubt about how the luminol prints were produced, where Amanda jumps barefoot in leaps of 2 meters (straight and in angls) on her right foot to produce the prints in the corridoor and in her room, and the drops in Filomena's room, and a shoeprint, after having walked somewhere in a solution of copper salt.

How would a guilty Knox have produced prints where she jumps around as you describe? And what part of Knox was bleeding to produce these "drops" in Filomena's room? And which of Knox's shoes did the "shoeprint" belong to?

 

[Machiavelli]

It's extraordinarily easy to tell if a photograph of a tiled floor was taken perpendicularly, when one knows the dimensions of the tiles. Try it some time.

John, the photograph was used to elicit the measurements of tiles, after the assessment that it was perpendicular.
Being accustomed with professional photograoy I can say it is not quite possible to assert a picture was shot "perpendicularly" with a precision remotely near the one that is claimed, and shot a photo "perpendicularly" is not something that can be done manually.

The post for you to answer was the one about hypocricy. Here seems you prefer to talk about a part of the appeal document that you haven't read, and you didn't get the process of measurement of the tile.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What is written in the appeal contains a few outstanding contradictions. Among them, the assertion that Vinci made his measurements by chosing a picture taken perpendicularly.

I can't see such assumption there. He obviously performed a perspective correction of his own using an Image-Pro Plus software.

Either there is a failure in the Appeal document in explaining Vinci's reasoning properly, or there is a logic hole.
The measurements process and the process of perspective correction performed by Vinci appear totally unclear in this Appeal - albeit the text asserts they are clear - and they are instead associated with this basic contradiction.

I believe there are "interface" problems both in the appeal clearly communicating Vinci's methods and in your receiving that communication.

Vinci also takes a few measurements about a tile asserting they are "correct", and those data appear obviously ridiculous since theyr error is below the sixth decimal of millimtere, almost a molecular level.

There are of course not measurements but simply results from the software. To know the confidence interval we should probably read Vinci, however it is inconsequential, unless that interval is many centimeters