Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lionking]

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.

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.

This personal attack, of course, bears no relationship to my post. But it's become expected in this thread. Any response other than "AK and RS are totally innocent" is greeted with ad homs like this. The poll referred to is crap. Pure and simple.

 

[Matthew Best]

This personal attack, of course, bears no relationship to my post. But it's become expected in this thread. Any response other than "AK and RS are totally innocent" is greeted with ad homs like this. The poll referred to is crap. Pure and simple.

What personal attack?

 

[Rolfe]

What personal attack?

That one maybe?

The poll referred to is crap. Pure and simple.

The poll is interesting, but the pictures in the OP are perhaps more interesting still.

Most interesting of all is that there is no expert training that will allow someone to divine who made a particular footprint, to a better degree of accuracy than anyone with a brain and normal eyesight.

Rolfe.

 

[Poppy1016]

Lionking,
educated, rational thoughts and ideas seem to be welcome here. Try disagreeing with the company line on the sites with the guilt point of view, and you will be. banned. It seems to me that any view is welcome here as part of the discussion, as long as it is reasonable and backed by real evidence. My observation is that some are only practicing debating skills and not seriously seeking the truth.

 

[RoseMontague]

This personal attack, of course, bears no relationship to my post. But it's become expected in this thread. Any response other than "AK and RS are totally innocent" is greeted with ad homs like this. The poll referred to is crap. Pure and simple.

Well my post bears no relationship to yours because I was not responding or replying to your post. Giving an opinion that anyone with a lick of sense can see what is obvious about the footprints is my opinion, not a personal attack. Did you even say whose print you thought it was? If you even gave an opinion on this piece of evidence, I missed it.

 

[AmyStrange]

Most polls are crap...

This personal attack, of course, bears no relationship to my post. But it's become expected in this thread. Any response other than "AK and RS are totally innocent" is greeted with ad homs like this. The poll referred to is crap. Pure and simple.

Lionking,

in THAT you are definitely correct, atleast in my opinion anyway, but they are fun nonetheless and mostly harmless. I personally can't tell who's it is. The big toe on Raffaele's print kind of makes it appear less likely it is his.

What I want to know is where and when Raffaele and Rudy's prints were taken? The reason I ask is because the big toe just looks too big, like someone did that to skew the results so people would pick Rudy's over Raffaele's, but that's just my opinion.

But like Rose, I also missed who's footprint you thought it was and why you think that. No outside "expert" opinions please, just your opinion. I really am curious and want to know what you think,

Dave

 

[Dan O.]

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).

Something to think about next time you look at that bathmat print.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

One of my comments in that thread was that I wish there was a way to randomize the poll so left/right bias wasn't a factor.

 

[HumanityBlues]

One of my comments in that thread was that I wish there was a way to randomize the poll so left/right bias wasn't a factor.

I know another forum where we could do another poll on it where most people would have no idea it had anything to do with the Knox case. PM if interested.

 

[Rolfe]

Well my post bears no relationship to yours because I was not responding or replying to your post. Giving an opinion that anyone with a lick of sense can see what is obvious about the footprints is my opinion, not a personal attack. Did you even say whose print you thought it was? If you even gave an opinion on this piece of evidence, I missed it.

I think Lionking might take the view that it's not up to him to decide whose print it is, and he'll leave that to the experts. Which neatly begs the question, as there are no genuine experts in this type of footprint analysis. It's about as scientific as Rorscharch blots, if that.

Rolfe.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think Lionking might take the view that it's not up to him to decide whose print it is, and he'll leave that to the experts. Which neatly begs the question, as there are no genuine experts in this type of footprint analysis. It's about as scientific as Rorscharch blots, if that.

Rolfe.

Someone can correct me, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't the same expert who says the print on the bathman was Raffaele's the same guy who said a shoe print was Raffaele's that later turned out to be Rudy's shoe print? In the latter instance, it was Raffaele's attorneys who proved it was Rudy's shoe print by counting simply counting the rings in the print. Another example of the defense having to do the job of the police.

 

[RoseMontague]

Earlier I had posted the defense consultant's testimony disputing Rinaldi's assertion that one of the Luminol prints belonged to Amanda. From the Rinaldi report:

2. The footprint detected with Luminol (Survey 1) reproduced in photo 2, reported a magnitude
Natural photo 21, was confronted with the fingerprint taken at the right foot
KNOX Amanda. Comparisons have allowed to verify the correspondence in order to general characteristics between the two fingerprints. The pictures 21, 22, 23 and 24 of photo are reproduced life-size footprint find and the corresponding portion of the Amanda Knox's right foot. The sequences are presented from which you highlights the compatibility between the two benchmarks.Accordingly, the detected in order to match the general characteristics of shape and size, allow judge the likely identity of the mark reproduced in photo 2 and the impression taken in the right foot KNOX Amanda.

Remember the consultant talked about Amanda's second toe. Check out the pictures, has this toe just been ignored? LOL:

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Someone can correct me, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't the same expert who says the print on the bathman was Raffaele's the same guy who said a shoe print was Raffaele's that later turned out to be Rudy's shoe print? In the latter instance, it was Raffaele's attorneys who proved it was Rudy's shoe print by counting simply counting the rings in the print. Another example of the defense having to do the job of the police.

Raffaele's family brought it to the attention of their attorney. The family had to do the work of the police!

Yes you are exactly right. The prosecution's expert wrongly attributed the print in Meredith's room to Raffaele. I mean the prints weren't even close to Raffaele's, they were such a perfect match for Rudy that Rudy himself even admitted they were his!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Earlier I had posted the defense consultant's testimony disputing Rinaldi's assertion that one of the Luminol prints belonged to Amanda. From the Rinaldi report:


Remember the consultant talked about Amanda's second toe. Check out the pictures, has this toe just been ignored? LOL:

That really looks very different. I've got a feeling the court is not going to buy Rinaldi's crap this time.

 

[AmyStrange]

A much fairer and more accurate poll...

-

would be (I think HBlue commented something about another poll somewhere else but I digress) to not label (use A, B, C etc.) who's print was who's (plus introduce two, or three, or four, other footprints that are not related to the case like the classic police line-up) and then flip all the photos upside-down and THEN put the poll on a neutral website, then post a link to this website at this forum and TJMK and PMF and at Perugia shock and IIP, and let the chips fall where they may.

Just a suggestion,

Dave

 

[christianahannah]

Raffaele's family brought it to the attention of their attorney. The family had to do the work of the police!

Yes you are exactly right. The prosecution's expert wrongly attributed the print in Meredith's room to Raffaele. I mean the prints weren't even close to Raffaele's, they were such a perfect match for Rudy that Rudy himself even admitted they were his!

The second paragraph isn't exactly correct. It was Ippolito-Mainieri (November 2007) who had attributed the print in Meredith's room to Raffaele.

Rinaldi-Boemia were entrusted with the technical examination of the shoeprint/footprints by the prosecutor in January 2008.

This is one of the few instances in which experts for both the prosecution and defense agree with one another. The discrepancy comes in who made the discovery first. But both agree the print was not made with the sole from Raffaele's Nike shoe.

Do you know the cite/timeframe for Rudy's confession of the print being his? I have been trying to locate a reliable source for this but so far have been unable to do so (other than the story told which is the same as you have related above).

 

[RoseMontague]

The second paragraph isn't exactly correct. It was Ippolito-Mainieri (November 2007) who had attributed the print in Meredith's room to Raffaele.

Rinaldi-Boemia were entrusted with the technical examination of the shoeprint/footprints by the prosecutor in January 2008.

This is one of the few instances in which experts for both the prosecution and defense agree with one another. The discrepancy comes in who made the discovery first. But both agree the print was not made with the sole from Raffaele's Nike shoe.

Do you know the cite/timeframe for Rudy's confession of the print being his? I have been trying to locate a reliable source for this but so far have been unable to do so (other than the story told which is the same as you have related above).

I thought Vinci had indicated that Ippolito had done the second exam that countered the first erroneous one. They could have done the first one as well but I don't remember it that way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mystification from the prosecution

Remember the consultant talked about Amanda's second toe. Check out the pictures, has this toe just been ignored? LOL:

RoseMontague,

I don't recall ever seeing this comparison before. I am willing to listen to arguments to the effect that the luminol print should not be attributed to anyone (lacking whorls and what not). But I am completely baffled how anyone could attribute it to Amanda with that second toe issue. Another thing with respect to the luminol prints that I have never understood is how one can relate them to the crime when all three are right feet.

 

[Malkmus]

Earlier I had posted the defense consultant's testimony disputing Rinaldi's assertion that one of the Luminol prints belonged to Amanda. From the Rinaldi report:


Remember the consultant talked about Amanda's second toe. Check out the pictures, has this toe just been ignored? LOL:

This is pretty astonishing. Thanks.

 

[christianahannah]

I thought Vinci had indicated that Ippolito had done the second exam that countered the first erroneous one. They could have done the first one as well but I don't remember it that way.

There were two reports from Ippolito in November both of which were erroneous.

Rinaldi was appointed in January 2008 and it is unclear whether he knew of Vinci's report (stating the shoeprint was not Raffaele's). But anyways, Rinaldi and Vinci both agreed it was not Raffaele's shoeprint. Rinaldi's report overturned Ippolito's report.

Ippolito was also in charge of photographing the luminol images on December 18, 2007. I think Vinci was also present during this phase in the investigation (representing the defense), but I would have to recheck that information.