Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Aber]

Meredith was not ill

IIRC didn't she overindulge the night before, and have a hangover at least?

 

[Antony]

I can think of one reason that might be the case, as in those photos weren't legitimate, in other words some blogger from anywhere might well have created or obtained photo-shopped pictures of Amanda Knox and offered them to the tabloids who of course turned them down.

These were my thoughts exactly when I saw your reference to BLN's Newsweek quote.

 

[lionking]

If the poll was anonomous, how do you know it know that it was mainly AK supporters?

Besides, it was a poll in this forum, so are you saying that most of JREF are AK supporters, and if so, then what does that say about the case since this place is supposed to be full of rational thinkers?

link to poll

Note that less that 5% of those answering thought it was Raffale's footprint, over 23% thought it was Rudy's, and over 50% thought it could have been anyone's.

As I suggested, this poll means nothing. What do you would think about a poll which asked the general public (not JREF membership), do you think AK is guilty, innocent, don't know, don't care? I would very confidently suggest that options three and four would dominate. And exactly what would this prove?

 

[Rolfe]

That's not a legitimate comparison at all.

I didn't see the poll at the time, but I looked now, and the three photos (the bathmat print and the two reference prints) were shown in clear in the OP. The specific question was asked, which if either reference print appears to match the bathmat print.

That is very different from a vague vox pop such as you are describing, Lionking. That you would make such a comparison, is something I find very dishonest.

For what it's worth, I'd go with insufficient data to match the bathmat print to either of the reference prints, but if you twisted my arm to choose one or the other I'd definitely go for the one on the left on account of the shape of the big toe and the ball of the foot.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

And the relevance?

 

[Paninaro]

Well I'm convinced then. An anonymous poll of mainly AK supporters. Can't argue with that.

Well, you could try.

Can it be ruled out with absolute certainty that it was Rudy Guede's footprint on the bathmat?

I haven't voted in the poll, but my opinion is that it cannot be decided - there is insufficient detail to conclude either way - and that it therefore isn't good enough evidence to put Sollecito on the crime scene.

 

[lionking]

Well, you could try.

Can it be ruled out with absolute certainty that it was Rudy Guede's footprint on the bathmat?

I haven't voted in the poll, but my opinion is that it cannot be decided - there is insufficient detail to conclude either way - and that it therefore isn't good enough evidence to put Sollecito on the crime scene.

The poll means nothing. Is it that hard to accept?

 

[Rolfe]

The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

A poll on this forum shows that? Really? A poll on another forum shows that it's really an image of Jesus on a piece of toast.

Is that hard to accept?

 

[Rolfe]

I presume you have eyes. The poll shows the actual pictures. It's perfectly obvious that footprint on its cannot be taken as evidence that any particular person was there.

Crikey, considering the furore there has been about the accuracy of some fingerprints as analysed by actual fingerprint experts (see the Shirley McKie affair for example), and fingerprints are actually accepted as having evidential value, the very idea that that footprint could be said to be of anyone in particular with any degree of certainty is ludicrous.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think it is a great poll, thanks Dan O.

The only conclusion anybody with a lick of sense including experts could come to is that it is impossible to say conclusively whose print this belongs to. Just my opinion.

It does look more like Rudy's print, btw.

 

[LondonJohn]

I presume you have eyes. The poll shows the actual pictures. It's perfectly obvious that footprint on its cannot be taken as evidence that any particular person was there.

Crikey, considering the furore there has been about the accuracy of some fingerprints as analysed by actual fingerprint experts (see the Shirley McKie affair for example), and fingerprints are actually accepted as having evidential value, the very idea that that footprint could be said to be of anyone in particular with any degree of certainty is ludicrous.

Rolfe.

While I would actually (partially) agree with Lionking that internet polls are not a particularly good indicator, it's clear in this case that the prosecution "specialist" Rinaldi employed utterly bogus pseudoscience and confirmation-biased measurements to bamboozle the court into an incorrect conclusion on the bathmat partial print.

We know from Rinaldi's own testimony that not only did he have the reference prints of Guede and Sollecito in front of him when he was analysing the bathmat print, but also that he knew which reference print belonged to whom, and whom the police were trying to link to the murder. It's clear that he arbitrarily decided that the big toes shape of the partial print "corresponded more closely" with Sollecito's reference print - almost certainly because he erroneously chose to include the blood drop at the top right of the toe print as part of the toe profile.

Rinaldi then engaged in a classic exercise in confirmation bias: having decided that the bathmat print was probably Sollecito's, he willfully mis-measured reference points on the bathmat print such that they closely matched the corresponding measurements on Sollecito's reference print. He then stunningly contradicted his previous assertion - that imprecise prints such as the bathmat partial print could only be used to exclude people rather than make positive identifications - by stating that the print could not only a) be excluded as a match to Guede (an erroneous conclusion), but also b) be positively matched to Sollecito. In making this u-turn, Rinaldi employed the circular argument that since Sollecito was the only other possible person in the frame, the print had to (by a process of elimination) belong to Sollecito.

The truth about the blood/water partial print on the bathmat is this: it can only be shown to have come from an adult male with above-average foot size. It cannot be either matched to or eliminated from any male with above-average feet who does not have a highly unusual foot shape (e.g. at the extreme ends of width, or with some toes missing, etc). The reason why it's only possible to make such a general analysis of the bathmat print is blindingly obvious to anyone with a scientific and logical mind: the bathmat print was made on an irregular, tufted surface, and there is absolutely no way to know how much weight was placed upon the foot when it deposited the print. Therefore, the margins of the print are incapable of being compared with reference prints made on hard, flat surfaces with precise printer's ink.

As others have already pointed out, all the other available evidence (Guede's proven presence at the murder scene, and his admission to having washed blood off his trouser leg) points to the obvious conclusion: the blood/water partial print on the bathmat belongs to Guede; and he made it by placing the sole of his foot in pooling dilute blood/water (probably in the floor of the shower) while he was washing blood from the front of his trouser leg, then placing his foot down onto the bathmat (probably when he reached across for a towel to dry off his trouser leg, feet and hands).

 

[LondonJohn]

IIRC didn't she overindulge the night before, and have a hangover at least?

You're very probably correct. But that wouldn't have any significant effect whatsoever upon Meredith's gastrointestinal motility. "Ill" in this context means either a specific gastrointestinal disorder (e.g. ulcer, colitis, stomach cancer, dyssentry) or a very serious general illness/condition (e.g. advanced pneumonia, advanced-stage cancer, heart attack/stroke).

 

[Rolfe]

This Rinaldi guy sounds extraordinarily bogus to me. We all know about the literature backing up fingerprint identifications. It's well-researched and scientific. There are many experts who agree on correct procedure and can validate each others' work. And even so, disputes and mis-identifications occur from time to time.

Where is the solid body of evidence backing up footprint identifications? Where is the body of expert opinion which has arrived at a scientific consensus in the subject? Where are this guy's colleagues who can validate his work and give their own opinions on the same prints when blinded as to which is which?

I don't think they exist. I think this is about as scientific as the "ear print" evidence that was exposed as one crank's unvalidated opinions in a different case.

As far as I can see, even if you were to say that it was a known fact that either Guede or Sollecito must have made that print, you couldn't say with certainty which it was. And if you're trying to use that print as proof of Sollecito's presence at the crime scene - well, just, wow.

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

Actually, I think LK has a point here. Polls are just polls, and don't tell us anything other than the balance of opinion among those who responded - which isn't the same as scientific fact.

At the same time, I agree with Katody Madras: going by the most obvious feature, the shape of the big toe, there's no way the footprint can honestly be ascribed to Raffaele, and Rudy is very much in the frame. What does that tell us about the guilters, who continue to propagate the lie that it is Raff's, and the 5% in the JREF poll who made the same "judgement"?

More to the point, the way that the prosecution employed a totally spurious argument - matching a width measurement incorporating an extraneous blob at the tip of the big toe print, to the width at the base of Raff's big toe - and the fact that Massei accepted it, tells us all we need to know about their lack of objectivity and impartiality.

 

[LondonJohn]

#1 - yea, good luck with that one

#2 - If that were the case then the Luminol test would have picked it up

#3 - Sorry, meant to say FOAKers

#1: No luck required, old chap. It's the simple reality of the situation. The print cannot be positively identified as Sollecito's, and nor can it be excluded as Guede's. And all the other evidence strongly points to it being Guede's. You'll find this out fairly soon in Hellmann's motivations report after the acquittals.

#2: Not necessarily by any stretch. And by your (erroneous) reasoning, Luminol should have detected a continuation of Guede's shoe print nearer to the front door if he went straight out of the door. You're wrong. It's elementary.

#3: Still not acceptable. But if you wish to employ deliberately provocative, insulting and factually-incorrect blanket terms to anyone who argues that Knox and Sollecito (remember Sollecito? He's the one who isn't Knox who's also part of this debate) should be acquitted, that's your prerogative. However in my opinion it says far more about you than it does about the people you seek to demean.

 

[LondonJohn]

This Rinaldi guy sounds extraordinarily bogus to me. We all know about the literature backing up fingerprint identifications. It's well-researched and scientific. There are many experts who agree on correct procedure and can validate each others' work. And even so, disputes and mis-identifications occur from time to time.

Where is the solid body of evidence backing up footprint identifications? Where is the body of expert opinion which has arrived at a scientific consensus in the subject? Where are this guy's colleagues who can validate his work and give their own opinions on the same prints when blinded as to which is which?

I don't think they exist. I think this is about as scientific as the "ear print" evidence that was exposed as one crank's unvalidated opinions in a different case.

As far as I can see, even if you were to say that it was a known fact that either Guede or Sollecito must hve made that print, you couldn't say with certainty which is was. And if you're trying to use that print as proof of Sollecito's presence at the crime scene - well, just, wow.

Rolfe.

You're absolutely correct. Foot print shape analysis has been shown conclusively to be worthless in evidential terms; it has essentially been exposed as bogus pseudoscience dreamed up by people who either had a vested financial (or other) interest in promoting it, or by police/prosecutors who were overzealous in their search for inculpatory evidence against suspects.

The only area where foot prints can be usefully used in evidence is if there is a sufficiently clear and detailed footprint at the scene to show the individual crease, loop and whorl characteristics of the foot. If that is the case, reference prints can usually be either matched or excluded. But of course this situation almost never occurs - and it most certainly didn't occur in this case.

It's now generally accepted that even if a clear footprint is left on a hard flat surface (e.g. a tiled floor) it's not possible to make a positive match to any specific individual - unless that individual and the print share a very unusual characteristic such as webbed toes, missing toes or very extreme length or width. There are just too many variables present to enable an accurate comparison - chief amongst which are the print medium* (and its concentration, viscosity and level of saturation), the weight of the footfall, and the absorbancy of the surface.

And that's the case for a "best case" scenario of a clear whole print made on a smooth, hard, flat surface. In this case, we have a partial print made on a deeply-tufted towelling bathmat with a ridged pattern, made in a saturated blood/water solution, and most likely made from a partially-weighted balance step rather than a regular ambulatory footfall. It is therefore impossible to say any more about the bathmat partial print than that it was deposited by an adult male with above-average foot size. Nothing more than that.

* i.e. the substance (usually a liquid) from which the print has been made.

 

[Supernaut]

As I suggested, this poll means nothing. What do you would think about a poll which asked the general public (not JREF membership), do you think AK is guilty, innocent, don't know, don't care? I would very confidently suggest that options three and four would dominate. And exactly what would this prove?

I noticed Stilicho, like you, often trotting out the "nobody gives a **** anymore" spiel.

I presume that, more in hope than expectation, you wanted to see interest in the case wane as it dragged on for all these months and years, and for AK and RS remain in prison.

Sorry, you're in for a disppointment, and I look forward to seeing your nose rubbed in it.

 

[Rolfe]

.... if you twisted my arm to choose one or the other I'd definitely go for the one on the left on account of the shape of the big toe and the ball of the foot.

I can't tell my left from my right, that's official. I wondered why I was confused. It's the one on the right I thought was the better match, if either!

Rolfe.

 

[christianahannah]

The nude photos of Amanda Knox 'reportedly' offered for sale to a British tabloid source back to this Newsweek article by Barbie Nadeau posted here on the Daily Beast:



As you can see that article contains an oblique reference to the Cheshire Cat herself who had this to say:



So as you can see, not only does the Barbie Nadeau article not name who it is, the term 'reportedly' is employed. It should be remembered Barbie decided to add something like five extra men to Amanda's sex life in Italy based on nothing but rumors that all turned out to be untrue, and of course never actually noticed of the seven listed in her diary, five were Americans she'd known before she got to Italy. So if Barbie, who can blithely go from 'two' to 'twelve' (or so) and considering it worth reporting as fact, anything she writes as unsubstantiated, unsourced rumor is even more suspect.


As of September 1st, 2010 the Cheshire Cat was still only suggesting who she thought was responsible for the 'naked pictures' as per the post timestamped 2:58 PM. A couple posts down just crack me up, as Katy-Did was 'exposed' as a malignant force by Capealadin for the following comment on JREF:

'Hope the dissenters keep posting though. PMF is so much funner when there are people disagreeing with them."

Her appeal fell on deaf ears as she was then tried by SomeAlibi for treason and executed with no remorse with the dread words: 'Thanks for stopping by.'

So all this amounts to is a rumor Barbara Nadeau wrote about, over time it morphed into an accusation that it could only have been Frank Sfarzo, which is kind of ridiculous as it assumes that there actually were nude photos in the hands of police that Frank somehow got access to, that the police themselves didn't bother to trumpet them to the entire world. As they were creatively translating her Myspace story to make it sound like she had 'rape fantasies' and releasing her diary to reporters suggesting she'd had seven lovers in Italy instead of her life, one would think 'obscene' photos would at least be referred to. Poor Raffaele was damned for something along those lines.

One the other end we have British tabloids whom we are supposed to believe actually turned down naked pictures of their 'Foxy Knoxy' who they were in the process of burning at the stake. Not only that, we're supposed to believe they didn't even mention it. I can think of one reason that might be the case, as in those photos weren't legitimate, in other words some blogger from anywhere might well have created or obtained photo-shopped pictures of Amanda Knox and offered them to the tabloids who of course turned them down.

Considering this is the same group of 'intrepid investigators' who 'determined' Steve Moore was the one investigating financial crimes in the South Pacific, LondonJohn wasn't actually from London but really a FOA infilitrator from Texas, (hilarious reading can be had on this in both previous threads and PMF) Bruce Fisher was a cameraman in Seattle and Frank Sfarzo a 'tool' of the Gogerty-Marriott/FOA PR Supertanker of Doom, the conclusion that whoever and whatever Barbara Nadeau was referring to in that article was Frank Sfarzo is specious at best. At worst it's a false accusation, which reminds me of that police complaint filed also mentioned in that article and the commentary by the Cheshire Cat: what became of that? Was that also a false accusation?

Your last paragraph helps my point that the sub-story in the Kercher case is one that is very interesting should anyone have the inclination to research and write about it. I will never understand this seeking out of identities and posting of rumors as facts. There are two sides pitted one against the other and for what I am not sure (and I do not mean the two sides of guilt or innocence).