Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[smkovalinksy]

I see from this excerpt from TJMK that Maresca does indeed maintain the distinction between the two types of acquittals:

Maresca, on Mez: “They were acquitted for lack of proof, but the sentence takes a very one-sided approach”

“Only the defences’ expert witnesses were given any credence. It’s excessive to completely throw out the first instance case”.

The “reasoning report” of the Assizes court of appeal has confirmed that this is a case of an acquittal because of lack of evidence, rather than an acquittal with “formula piena” [approximately “proof of innocence without doubt”]

However it is also a sentence which is a result of a one-sided approach”.

This is the commentary of Francesco Maresca. . .

“This reasoning report”, he added, “leave us with an even more bitter taste in our mouths because we consider that the judges gave credence only to the defence-team experts. . .

“There are no great surprises”, said Prosecutor Manuela Comodi, who was prosecutor in the first and second-level trials. “It seems to me”, she added, “that there is a lot of room to challenge the sentence. That duty [however] lies entirely with the Attorney General.”

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[LondonJohn]

Good to see you Mach. As I said in my first post on the subject I wasn't sure of the official widths.

Regardless of the widths the bathmat print can't ID anyone as the police expert stated.

If the blood/water was deep enough to "ink" the arch between Raf's big toe and his foot, wouldn't the entire foot be inked and the entire foot minus the heel would be outlined on the mat without all the missing sections as it actually is? Now, that wouldn't be the case if it was Rudy's because he doesn't have that arch, so his foot would leave the mark between toe and foot without needing the depth of blood Raf's would need.

In my opinion, the attempts by certain pro-guilt commentators to "match" the bathmat print to that of Sollecito (and to exclude it as that of Guede) are nothing more than laughable examples of post-hoc rationalisation. I can almost guarantee that if the two reference prints had been anonymised and then put up for a match/exclusion by the same "analysis", the results would have been close to a 50/50 split - i.e. no better than chance.

The partial print on the mat was made on a tufted, highly-textured surface, by a footfall whose pressure we cannot even begin to guess (i.e. ranging from a soft touch with all the body's weight remaining on the other standing foot through to a heavy footfall bearing all the body's weight). The pseudoscientific nonsense that has been spouted to try to justify a predetermined conclusion (that the print definitely is not Guede's, and that it is a match to Sollecito) is ridiculous and without foundation.

Once again, here's the truth: the bathmat partial print can only be ascribed to an adult male with above-average foot size. The circumstances of this print's deposit - the print medium (both dilution and saturation level), the effects of the bathmat texture on the shape of the print and the nature/weight of the footfall - mean that it cannot be measured against reference prints made on a level, hard surface, using print ink and with a standard footfall. The very term "millimetre accuracy", when applied to the comparison of the bathmat print to the reference prints, is risible and wholly inappropriate.

Neither Guede nor Sollecito can be ruled out as the source of that print. All the other evidence points to it having been made by Guede. But one thing's for certain: it cannot be used as probative evidence against either Sollecito or Guede. Guede was convicted without even a hint of reference to this print in his trials (the prosecutors were "saving" it for Sollecito's trial, and thus didn't want it to be matched to Guede). Guede was convicted because there was clear and unassailable evidence that he was at the murder scene, and because his version of events was unbelievable (and was contradicted by his documented behaviour in the hours and days after the murder). By contrast, there is not a solitary piece of evidence pointing to Sollecito's participation in the murder. Full stop.

Oh and by the way, I see that certain pro-guilt commentators appear to have over-rotated the bathmat print in their "analysis", as part of their rationalisation. If the bathmat print is rotated clockwise by only about 5 degrees (rather than the c.15 degrees shown in their "analysis", then Guede's print fits the outline sufficiently - particularly with reference to the big toe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Part 09: Time of Death - translation by roteoctober

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/time-of-death/

"So it follows that it is more coherent with the intentions professed by the girl and with the oddities of the above-mentioned phone calls, to hypothesize that actually the aggression, and shortly after the death, occurred much before the time supposed by the Court of Assizes of first degree: certainly not later than 22.13."


The Hellmann Report's reasoning on ToD is very sound. He is absolutely correct that the Court of Assizes of first degree did not take MK's phone calls into proper consideration. It simply made no sense that MK would hang out for an hour fully clothed with out attempting to call her mother again or any other communication. Then play with her phone by making calls in a random and illogical way an hour after arriving home. I'm glad to see her being fully dressed got mentioned here. The same is true of Rudy Guede's skype conversation with his friend, which also was not given enough importance in the first trial.

I would have liked Rudy Guede's given time of 21:20 in hearing MK scream listed. As well as the empty duodenum and wet laundry. I'm glad Bongiorno mentioned the stomach contents in closing and some of the papers picked up on that argument.

I agree. However, it's not really Hellmann's court's job to propose an accurate ToD. His court was only concerned with assessing whether the evidence proved Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, once Hellmann's court correctly determined that the 11.30-11.40pm ToD was impossible, and that the ToD had to have been before 10.15pm, this was all that the court needed to do in order to remove a big chunk of potentially-incriminating evidence.

I think we are muddying the water by trying to think that Hellmann needs to have "solved the crime" - that's not what his court was there to do, and it's not therefore what the motivations report should do either. The discussions we have here and elsewhere have actually had a dual agenda: a) to discuss whether or not Knox/Sollecito should be legally (and ethically) convicted of the murder, and b) to discuss what we believe might have really happened that night in the cottage. It's critical to understand that Hellmann's court was only ever concerned with the first topic. And with that in mind, once his court had determined that the murder had to have taken place before 10.15pm, that was sufficient to throw out certain pieced of evidence against Knox/Sollecito. It would have made no difference to the case against Knox/Sollecito if Hellmann's court had concluded that the ToD was around 9.30pm - the important thing was that the court concluded that it had to have been before 10.15.

Personally, I believe that an objective critical analysis of the available evidence leads to the inexorable conclusion that Meredith Kercher was confronted within minutes of arriving back at the cottage just after 9pm, and that she was almost certainly dead at some time between 9.15-9.45pm. The reasoning behind this conclusion have been discussed here at length before, and I believe that reasoning to be robust and accurate. I believe that Guede alone was responsible, and that he was conducting a burglary of the cottage (having broken in through Filomena's window) when he was surprised by Meredith's return. I believe that Guede was either forced into a confrontation with Meredith because he couldn't exit through the locked front door, or that he chose to confront Meredith. Either way, I think that the confrontation escalated into physical violence and the initiation of a sexual assault at knifepoint, and that when Meredith screamed or struggled (perhaps as her jeans were pulled down), Guede inflicted the fatal knife wounds.

But that entire last paragraph was not within Hellmann's court's remit to examine or determine (although Hellmann loosely proposes a similar scenario in his report, as a non-binding explanation of the crime). And I cannot state strongly enough how important it is to bear that in mind when considering the court's judgement.

 

[Draca]

Appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

The Injustice in Perugia appeal Press Release from November 2010. Interested in reviewing how the appeal played out compared to this early review of what the appeal would cover.

Appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november042010/amandaknox.php

Appello Di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Rilascio_Stampa.pdf

----------------------------------------------------

Press Release - Injustice in Perugia

Appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will appeal their convictions for the Nov.1, 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher, on Nov. 24, 2010. They are serving 26 and 25 years prison terms, respectively. This appeal in Perugia, Italy, could take only five days or run for several months, depending upon whether the judge approves defense requests for further testing.

Requests made by Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers:

a) That independent forensic experts examine the DNA evidence used to convict them and for the withheld electronic data files, instrument logs and control tests be released to the defense.
b) Sending computer hard drives damaged by police computer experts to be evaluated by their respected manufacturers in hopes of retrieving lost data.
c) An audio test to determine whether a prosecution witness could have heard a scream on the night of the murder.
d) Tests on a probable semen stain smeared by Rudy Guede’s shoe print that was found on a pillow underneath the victim’s body with a Crimescope.

Independent Forensic Examination

Independent forensic examination of Raffaele's kitchen knife, the alleged murder weapon, would result in it being thrown out on appeal. Any DNA that may have been on the knife was destroyed during testing by the prosecution's forensic expert. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni stopped testing when she received a ‘too low’ reading on other samples. She broke protocol in the testing of the knife which received a reading of ‘too low’ at least four times prior to the results that were then tested out of existence. She also broke DNA testing guidelines in the process. These tests were done even though the knife had tested negative for blood. The appeal is asking for the withheld electronic data files (fsa), instrument logs and control tests for the knife to be turned over to the defense for examination. The court found the murder to be unplanned and explains the use of the Raffaele’s kitchen knife by saying Amanda was carrying the 12 inch knife in her purse for protection. The appeal points out that this is implausible. The knife size is also not compatible with any of the victim’s wounds or the outline of a knife made on the bed sheet. To see the testing notes on the knife tests click here.

Raffaele’s appeal is requesting that new testing be done on the bra clasp claimed to have his DNA on it performed using LCN (Low Copy Number) requirements. According to Raffaele's appeal the DNA is not even his because there are several alleles that don’t match his profile, which rules him out completely. Raffaele’s appeal contends that testing will show DNA on the clasp is either not his or that it was found on the bra clasp only as a result of contamination. The bra clasp was only recovered 47 days after the murder and video captured that it had been moved from its original location. The clasp also has the DNA of 3 unknown profiles which shows the clasp was definitely contaminated. Video of the forensic team clearly show the team members passing the clasp around with gloves exhibiting dirt and spots on the fingers. It may also have been contaminated while being moved around the room or when it came in contact with the pile of objects it came to rest in. To see the bra clasp discovery video click here.

Amanda's appeal argues that the court improperly identified bare footprints revealed with Luminol in the hallway outside of Meredith’s bedroom as being made by Amanda the night of the murder. This is despite no footprints of Amanda being found anywhere at the bedroom crime scene. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood but also reacts to other substances such as household cleaning products. The Luminol revealed the bare footprints but the forensic team claimed not to have performed actual blood tests on the prints. In July 2009 testing records were obtained by the defense that showed the prints HAD been tested using Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) and all the Luminol prints tested negative for blood. TMB is a highly reactive test that may give false positives but rarely false negatives. Meredith’s DNA profile was not found in any of the bare footprints as another point. It is therefore unknown what the Luminol reacted to, whether the prints even belonged to Amanda and they cannot be dated.
...

For more clarity of the issues raised in the Appeals please log on to:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

Injustice In Perugia is an independent grassroots organization working against the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see from this excerpt from TJMK that Maresca does indeed maintain the distinction between the two types of acquittals:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

530.1 does not imply "proof of innocence without doubt". Instead, it implies that there was no evidence pointing to guilt. That's very different. Any case where there was an acquittal because of "proof of innocence without doubt" should never have got to trial in the first place. And very few innocent defendants can ever prove their innocence. But of course that's not the point: defendants are not required to prove their innocence (but of course it's an instant game-winner to them if they can do so!). Rather, the court has to find guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason, in order to convict. If such a burden of proof cannot be met, the the defendant has to be acquitted and presumed innocent.

On a related issue, I wonder just what Maresca's motivation is at this point. He must surely realise that he is facing an ethical dilemma regarding his fee: given that the civil judgement against Knox/Sollecito has been thrown out, he has no way of claiming his (presumably massive) fees other than demanding it from the Kerchers themselves. Even he can probably understand how uneasily this would sit with his stated "crusade" on behalf of the Kerchers: yep, go ahead and wipe them out financially! Nice work! I therefore can't help thinking that Maresca is a somewhat desperate man at this stage, and is rolling the dice on the chances of a successful prosecution Supreme Court appeal. As far as I can tell, his only hope of getting paid without attracting huge public opprobrium is if the case gets sent back to the appeal court, if Knox/Sollecito are subsequently convicted, and if the civil judgement is re-awarded. But that's not going to happen, and I suspect Maresca knows it. Oh dear.

 

[Dougm]

Which was an option in the Patty Hearst case - Hearst had been kidnapped and held in a closet until Stockholm Syndrome could set in. Yet she was convicted to a lengthy prison term for armed robbery, and it took a presidential pardon to spring her.

I think that if Amanda was on tape holding a machine gun while participating in a bank robbery (as Patty H was), I'd be with you on this one. I don't find the situations comparable.

 

[Draca]

Review of what was covered in the appeal

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november042010/amandaknox.php

a) That independent forensic experts examine the DNA evidence used to convict them and for the withheld electronic data files, instrument logs and control tests be released to the defense.

In the appeal the defense did get the crucial Independent Forensic experts! Both the kitchen knife and bra clasp were reviewed. This was by far the most important decision made during the appeal. Without the Independent Experts the appeal almost assuredly would have been sunk. I do believe the DNA experts open letter with Dr. Greg Hampikian and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson helped lead the way to them being assigned, as well as Steve Moore who gave many interviews saying 'If the evidence is so good, why won't they let anyone look at it'. That said, Hellmann could well have not been influenced at all. That is a small frustration for supporters, not knowing what if anything actually helped in the appeal. I personally believe the assignment of both Hellmann and the Independent DNA experts may have been influenced by the very vocal support Amanda and Raffaele were receiving.

The Independent experts did get the EDF files (eventually ) that Halides1 has mentioned repeatedly. I don't know if they got the control test and instrument logs. Anyone know?

b) Sending computer hard drives damaged by police computer experts to be evaluated by their respected manufacturers in hopes of retrieving lost data.
c) An audio test to determine whether a prosecution witness could have heard a scream on the night of the murder.
d) Tests on a probable semen stain smeared by Rudy Guede’s shoe print that was found on a pillow underneath the victim’s body with a Crimescope.

The defense failed to get any of these three requests approved. I find the untested semen stain particularly irksome.

The Bathmat Footprint

Hellmann did review the bathmat print as part of his report. He basically says there is no proof it was Raffaele's and it was likely Rudy Guede's.

The Alleged Clean up

I don't believe that this was brought up specifically. I think it is mostly dismissed with Quintavalle. Agree?

Computer activity and data retrieval

Unfortunately not. I would have loved to have had the computers reviewed. It would have been nice if the proof of the screen saver logs were given if it exists. Why do you think this was not approved?

The Witnesses

Shop owner Marco Quintavalle

They testified that they did not hear a scream. Yet the judge believes Nara Capezzali

Antonio Curatolo, the park bench witness, is a professional witness who testified in two other trials.

Toto as we know was thoroughly trashed in court. Heroin addict, wrong night, no buses, club owners confirmed nothing was open.

Quintavalle is said to be an unreliable witness by Hellmann. That pleased me extremely because I was disappointed that he wasn't brought into court again.

Hellmann is not hard on Nara, but still softly calls her unreliable.

The defense did well with the review of the witnesses in the appeal.

Both Amanda & Raffaele’s appeals argue strongly that there is no proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard of proof that is very high and difficult to meet based upon Italian law and Italian Supreme Court cases.

Yes! Hellmann completely agreed with the defense on this. All the bricks fell down and their was nothing left to build a case for guilt.

Anything else reviewed or not reviewed that was important?

 

[Draca]

I agree. However, it's not really Hellmann's court's job to propose an accurate ToD. His court was only concerned with assessing whether the evidence proved Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, once Hellmann's court correctly determined that the 11.30-11.40pm ToD was impossible, and that the ToD had to have been before 10.15pm, this was all that the court needed to do in order to remove a big chunk of potentially-incriminating evidence.

I think we are muddying the water by trying to think that Hellmann needs to have "solved the crime" - that's not what his court was there to do, and it's not therefore what the motivations report should do either. The discussions we have here and elsewhere have actually had a dual agenda: a) to discuss whether or not Knox/Sollecito should be legally (and ethically) convicted of the murder, and b) to discuss what we believe might have really happened that night in the cottage. It's critical to understand that Hellmann's court was only ever concerned with the first topic. And with that in mind, once his court had determined that the murder had to have taken place before 10.15pm, that was sufficient to throw out certain pieced of evidence against Knox/Sollecito. It would have made no difference to the case against Knox/Sollecito if Hellmann's court had concluded that the ToD was around 9.30pm - the important thing was that the court concluded that it had to have been before 10.15.

Thanks LJ. As much as I would have liked to have seen every bit of the ToD info put in the report to hammer the point home it was not necessary. The main thing was that the prosecutions ToD could not be true. I still wish it was there.

I am confused on one thing though. Didn't Comodi change the prosecutions ToD in the appeal? Didn't she say the phones were in Amanda and Raffaele's hands for the 10 p.m. time frame calls?

 

[Draca]

530.1 does not imply "proof of innocence without doubt". Instead, it implies that there was no evidence pointing to guilt. That's very different. Any case where there was an acquittal because of "proof of innocence without doubt" should never have got to trial in the first place. And very few innocent defendants can ever prove their innocence. But of course that's not the point: defendants are not required to prove their innocence (but of course it's an instant game-winner to them if they can do so!). Rather, the court has to find guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason, in order to convict. If such a burden of proof cannot be met, the the defendant has to be acquitted and presumed innocent.

I wonder why he doesn't just put it in writing? 530.1

On a related issue, I wonder just what Maresca's motivation is at this point. He must surely realise that he is facing an ethical dilemma regarding his fee: given that the civil judgement against Knox/Sollecito has been thrown out, he has no way of claiming his (presumably massive) fees other than demanding it from the Kerchers themselves. Even he can probably understand how uneasily this would sit with his stated "crusade" on behalf of the Kerchers: yep, go ahead and wipe them out financially! Nice work! I therefore can't help thinking that Maresca is a somewhat desperate man at this stage, and is rolling the dice on the chances of a successful prosecution Supreme Court appeal. As far as I can tell, his only hope of getting paid without attracting huge public opprobrium is if the case gets sent back to the appeal court, if Knox/Sollecito are subsequently convicted, and if the civil judgement is re-awarded. But that's not going to happen, and I suspect Maresca knows it. Oh dear.

Very interesting thoughts. Yes, it does look like he is planning on an appeal. I don't know why the Kercher's continue to support his ideas. John Kercher wrote that he read the Massei report over and over. Hopefully once the Hellmann report is fully translated he will also read that repeatedly. I wonder under what grounds Maresca will try to appeal? Stephanie Kercher had announced a defense fund to ... well, pay Maresca. I don't know how successful the fund will be but in my opinion it is throwing good money after bad.

"I therefore can't help thinking that Maresca is a somewhat desperate man at this stage"

Lovely thought LJ, it would be nice to see him left with empty hands for his efforts. I believe he will demand his payment from the Kerchers however and that is his right. I have seen no honest regard for them from Maresca, Mignini, Comodi, Napoleoni, Stefanoni or the rest of the gang. The Kerchers must be aware that the lawyers will need to paid no matter the outcome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good to see you Mach. As I said in my first post on the subject I wasn't sure of the official widths.

Regardless of the widths the bathmat print can't ID anyone as the police expert stated.

If the blood/water was deep enough to "ink" the arch between Raf's big toe and his foot, wouldn't the entire foot be inked and the entire foot minus the heel would be outlined on the mat without all the missing sections as it actually is? Now, that wouldn't be the case if it was Rudy's because he doesn't have that arch, so his foot would leave the mark between toe and foot without needing the depth of blood Raf's would need.

No. In fact the "if the water was deep enough" is a pointless question: the foot was made in water and not kinked by stepping from a surfece. There is enough evidence to state this for certain.
The depth of the pool of water is not relevant, two, three centimetres, ten centimetres, we don't know: what is enough to know, is that it was a significant depth, in terms of centimetres, not a wet surface.
Hence, the Hellmann's argument is proven false. Half of his argument rests on this false assumption.
For the rest of the areas, in fact there are no that large areas ("sections") missing from the print. The print in fact is that of a rather completely wet foot. But, the step was probably not with full body weight, and maybe slightly more on the external edge than in normal walk, as sometimes when people istincively do when make a little step with wet feet. Hence an incomplete contact with the internal planatar arch. But the rest, basically there are no small toe, not because they are missing, but because that foot would normally almost not touch the ground with the small toes.
Obviously the colour is caused by the amount of water with diluted blood. This would be itself not inking uniformly the sole of a foot even after it was completely plunged into water, because when the foot is out water naturally flows from the fingers to the areas in lower position, few seconds are enough to change the thicknes of the "ink layer".
I disagree with your expectation about the gap between the toe and the metatarsus. In fact, Sollecito's toe is attached to the foot like any others, and you may notice that in fact his phalax does have contact with the ground even in the police print (in the left print this is much more evident, but can be seen in the right print as well), so the skin is in fact extremely close. This poor contact entirely depends on the hardness of the surface. You can't expect that on a fluffy doodle in relief on a soft rug. Such expectation of lack of contact is nonsense.

The bathmat print excludes Guede. The print is different. The compatibility with Sollecito instead is obvious and peculiar. It's not a matter of identifying someone, to me the different shapes stand out because of rough factors, Guede and the print are two objects with a roughtly diffrent shape, while Sollecito's print "explains" the bathmat print accurately.

 

[Draca]

No. In fact the "if the water was deep enough" is a pointless question: the foot was made in water and not kinked by stepping from a surfece. There is enough evidence to state this for certain.
The depth of the pool of water is not relevant, two, three centimetres, ten centimetres, we don't know: what is enough to know, is that it was a significant depth, in terms of centimetres, not a wet surface.
Hence, the Hellmann's argument is proven false. Half of his argument rests on this false assumption.
For the rest of the areas, in fact there are no that large areas ("sections") missing from the print. The print in fact is that of a rather completely wet foot. But, the step was probably not with full body weight, and maybe slightly more on the external edge than in normal walk, as sometimes when people istincively do when make a little step with wet feet. Hence an incomplete contact with the internal planatar arch. But the rest, basically there are no small toe, not because they are missing, but because that foot would normally almost not touch the ground with the small toes.
Obviously the colour is caused by the amount of water with diluted blood. This would be itself not inking uniformly the sole of a foot even after it was completely plunged into water, because when the foot is out water naturally flows from the fingers to the areas in lower position, few seconds are enough to change the thicknes of the "ink layer".
I disagree with your expectation about the gap between the toe and the metatarsus. In fact, Sollecito's toe is attached to the foot like any others, and you may notice that in fact his phalax does have contact with the ground even in the police print (in the left print this is much more evident, but can be seen in the right print as well), so the skin is in fact extremely close. This poor contact entirely depends on the hardness of the surface. You can't expect that on a fluffy doodle in relief on a soft rug. Such expectation of lack of contact is nonsense.

The bathmat print excludes Guede. The print is different. The compatibility with Sollecito instead is obvious and peculiar. It's not a matter of identifying someone, to me the different shapes stand out because of rough factors, Guede and the print are two objects with a roughtly diffrent shape, while Sollecito's print "explains" the bathmat print accurately.

Do you think this is an area that they will try to appeal? It is already accepted that the bathmat print does not conclusively belong to anyone. Hellmann does make the point that it is likely Rudy Guede's because it is known for sure that he was there that night. He even says he went into the bathroom.

The problem for the prosecution now is how do they possibly hope to prove the print belongs to Raffaele Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt? There clearly is reasonable doubt. The jury did not find the print to belong to RS. Was the jury unreasonable? How is there any further hope for the prosecution to reverse that?


52.43% of this poll voted: There is insufficient detail to conclude either way.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189522

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No. In fact the "if the water was deep enough" is a pointless question: the foot was made in water and not kinked by stepping from a surfece. There is enough evidence to state this for certain.
The depth of the pool of water is not relevant, two, three centimetres, ten centimetres, we don't know: what is enough to know, is that it was a significant depth, in terms of centimetres, not a wet surface.

???

Are you saying the foot was submerged in a pool of bloody water (i.e., in the bidet) before making the print, as opposed, say, to a mix of blood and water running over the bottom of the foot during some kind of rinsing activity?

 

[Bill Williams]

The bathmat print excludes Guede. The print is different. The compatibility with Sollecito instead is obvious and peculiar. It's not a matter of identifying someone, to me the different shapes stand out because of rough factors, Guede and the print are two objects with a roughtly diffrent shape, while Sollecito's print "explains" the bathmat print accurately.

You must be looking at different pictures than I. To say that "the bathmat print excludes Guede" is like the old Richard Pryor joke, "Who are you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?"

Sollecito's print only explains the bathmat if Sollecito scrunches his foot and toes with the deftness of someone doing shadow puppetry with their fingers.... O Look, it's a bunny.

 

[HumanityBlues]

No. In fact the "if the water was deep enough" is a pointless question: the foot was made in water and not kinked by stepping from a surfece. There is enough evidence to state this for certain.
The depth of the pool of water is not relevant, two, three centimetres, ten centimetres, we don't know: what is enough to know, is that it was a significant depth, in terms of centimetres, not a wet surface.
Hence, the Hellmann's argument is proven false. Half of his argument rests on this false assumption.
For the rest of the areas, in fact there are no that large areas ("sections") missing from the print. The print in fact is that of a rather completely wet foot. But, the step was probably not with full body weight, and maybe slightly more on the external edge than in normal walk, as sometimes when people istincively do when make a little step with wet feet. Hence an incomplete contact with the internal planatar arch. But the rest, basically there are no small toe, not because they are missing, but because that foot would normally almost not touch the ground with the small toes.
Obviously the colour is caused by the amount of water with diluted blood. This would be itself not inking uniformly the sole of a foot even after it was completely plunged into water, because when the foot is out water naturally flows from the fingers to the areas in lower position, few seconds are enough to change the thicknes of the "ink layer".
I disagree with your expectation about the gap between the toe and the metatarsus. In fact, Sollecito's toe is attached to the foot like any others, and you may notice that in fact his phalax does have contact with the ground even in the police print (in the left print this is much more evident, but can be seen in the right print as well), so the skin is in fact extremely close. This poor contact entirely depends on the hardness of the surface. You can't expect that on a fluffy doodle in relief on a soft rug. Such expectation of lack of contact is nonsense.

The bathmat print excludes Guede. The print is different. The compatibility with Sollecito instead is obvious and peculiar. It's not a matter of identifying someone, to me the different shapes stand out because of rough factors, Guede and the print are two objects with a roughtly diffrent shape, while Sollecito's print "explains" the bathmat print accurately.

I've enjoyed watching the phony footprint analysis on PMF. The confirmation bias is so obvious it's downright silly. It's the obvious work of amateurs who are clearly out of their depth and have no idea what they're doing. No one on earth is taking these cruddy looking doodle pictures seriously. It's become one big joke and is convincing no one. Good for a laugh though.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli, What pool of water?

We know the sink was dry. There is no stopper in the shower. The contour of the toilet bowl doesn't appear to allow a foot to be submersed even if someone wanted to do such a thing. And i'm not positive about the bidet but it doesn't look like it is designed to pool the water either.

 

[komponisto]

I wonder why he doesn't just put it in writing? 530.1

Because he doesn't need to: just as I had originally thought, and contrary to the impression Machiavelli had all of us under, there is no legal difference between "530.1 acquittal" and "530.2 acquittal". In current Italian law, there is only conviction or acquittal, just like in the American system (and not like e.g. the Scottish system).

Section 530.1 says "the judge shall pronounce a verdict of acquittal", and section 530.2 also says "the judge shall pronounce a verdict of acquittal". In either case, the ruling being pronounced is the same.

There used to be a Scottish-style two-tiered system in Italian law, but it was abolished. This is why people refer to "la vecchia insufficienza di prove" ("the old [acquittal for] lack of evidence"). Note that word, vecchia, "old", i.e. former, anterior, of-the-past. There is no longer any such thing.

The Cassazione has confirmed as much: in a ruling of July 8, 2002, they held that a defendant acquitted "under 530.2" has no cause to appeal the verdict -- in direct contrast to the situation before, under the old code. Under the current one, not guilty is not guilty, and that's all there is to it.

Anyone who makes a fuss about an alleged distinction between "full formula" and "dubitative formula" acquittals is operating under an outdated jurisprudence.

 

[komponisto]

I see from this excerpt from TJMK that Maresca does indeed maintain the distinction between the two types of acquittals:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Maresca is playing a PR game, and knows better.

 

[Machiavelli]

-..
The problem for the prosecution now is how do they possibly hope to prove the print belongs to Raffaele Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt? There clearly is reasonable doubt. The jury did not find the print to belong to RS. Was the jury unreasonable? How is there any further hope for the prosecution to reverse that?
...

No reasonable doubt criteria has to be applied on single pieces of evidence.

If I were a SC judge, I would see plenty of room to overturn this point of judgement by Hellmann's court just on sheer logical reasons, because of their utterly flawed arguments, with no need to enter the matter of measurements and attribution of the print.

 

[Machiavelli]

???

Are you saying the foot was submerged in a pool of bloody water (i.e., in the bidet) before making the print, as opposed, say, to a mix of blood and water running over the bottom of the foot during some kind of rinsing activity?

No. I see no logical difference between an immersion in water or a rinsing activity.
Moreover I would consider "water running over the foot", I would never produce a concept like "running over the bottom of the foot".

 

[Machiavelli]

You must be looking at different pictures than I. To say that "the bathmat print excludes Guede" is like the old Richard Pryor joke, "Who are you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?"

Sollecito's print only explains the bathmat if Sollecito scrunches his foot and toes with the deftness of someone doing shadow puppetry with their fingers.... O Look, it's a bunny.

Probably I am looking at different pictures than you.