Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

Good lord, don't any of you people work for a living? The case is over. They are innocent. It's over. Done. Stick a fork in it.

But what could be more interesting than discussing a closed and solved case?

 

[Grinder]

But what could be more interesting than discussing a closed and solved case?

Watching paint dry?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

But what could be more interesting than discussing a closed and solved case?

Oh, I dunno. Having your hemorrhoids sliced off without anesthesia? I just can't believe the same arguments go around and around and around again. Poor Amanda and Raffaele deserve to have the discussion end. It must be pure torture to have it actively discussed on the internet. This is about the only place around still rehashing everything.

 

[bagels]

Oh, I dunno. Having your hemorrhoids sliced off without anesthesia? I just can't believe the same arguments go around and around and around again. Poor Amanda and Raffaele deserve to have the discussion end. It must be pure torture to have it actively discussed on the internet. This is about the only place around still rehashing everything.

Well Amanda could have erased this discussion from ever happening and anyone from ever having heard of her if she had taken the exquisite advice written in her passport she was so eager to use: If in legal trouble ask to speak with the US consulate immediately.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I dunno. Having your hemorrhoids sliced off without anesthesia? I just can't believe the same arguments go around and around and around again. Poor Amanda and Raffaele deserve to have the discussion end. It must be pure torture to have it actively discussed on the internet. This is about the only place around still rehashing everything.

It'll end Ampulla. People will get bored. I doubt that Amanda feels tortured by the discussion here. There really isn't much of an argument here. The consensus is she is innocent. About the only one who thinks differently is Vixen.

 

[Stacyhs]

Good lord, don't any of you people work for a living? The case is over. They are innocent. It's over. Done. Stick a fork in it.

Nope. Retired.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Italian police, actually being very bright, didn't follow this line of reasoning at all. Your logical fallacy = false premises.

So if you don;t agree with this list of things, can you enlighten us to what you believed the Police knew on the 6th when they called Raf in?

 

[bagels]

Petition to rename this thread "Italian police, actually being very bright,"

 

[Vixen]

So if you don;t agree with this list of things, can you enlighten us to what you believed the Police knew on the 6th when they called Raf in?

G'day, Blue. Let's go through your list bit by bit. You wrote:

>Your argument is circular.

>She knows that Rudy was there and covered it up because she was guilty
>She is guilty because she covered up for Rudy's presence.

Rudy was there. He was a participant and co-accessory to the murder (which, btw, like Amanda and Raff, Rudy denies). Bruno & Marasca believed Amanda named Patrick, in case one of the neighbours saw Rudy leave the house, were she herself was present. However, it was beyond Bruno & Marasca's remit to fact-find and none of the parties had made this submission. In addition, we will be looking at "what the police knew" as of the time of the murder. Having said that, the PIP's core arguments are themselves circular, "Rudy was there, this proves he did it, but just because Amanda was there, it doesn't mean she did."


>I'm going to go through a scenario for you, but first, let's go through what >the Police knew or suspected prior to the interrogation and make sure we're >in agreement.

>- The Police started out with the belief that the break in was faked because >it was on the 2nd Story

Battistelli, recognised it ws a mise en scene because (a) glass was on top of the clothing (b) "nothing was stolen" and, (c) the clothes had been thrown around half-heartedly. Police see many staged burglary scenes, and they usually indicate (1) an attempt at insurance fraud, or (2) an attempt to cover up another crime and (3) to deflect suspicion.

It wasn't (1) and yes, there was a body behind another door, so Dr Watson, we can surmise (2) the perps are pointing to a random burglar s the perp. Why? Here we come up with (3) who needs to deflect suspicion away? Answer: someone who lived there and/or knew the victim.

OTOH was there a real burglar? Given the clothes were slung around before the window was broken, and that three laptops and gold jewellery were ignored, together with Amanda's rent money, with only the victim's cash, credit cards and phones stolen, we have to ponder whether the burglar had some kind of a grudge against the victim to target her alone. The savagery of the attack on Mez, seemed more than a simple case of a burglar being confronted with a resident, given that the rape scene also looked carefully staged, with the body undressed after death and mounted on a pillow.

As to the outside of the building, there was no spoilage to the foliage below, nor scuff marks on the sheer twelve foot four inch wall leading up to the window. A boulder of twelve inch radius and weighing a hefty nine pounds, or four point four kilograms was found under the chair of the room. From its angle to the broken pane, it appeared to have been thrown whilst the window was open from the inside, as the wooden shutter behind it, has a dent from the boulder thrown from such an angle.

Did the burglar throw the nine-pound boulder up twelve feet four inches from the ground outside, or even from six feet across the car park, with all sorts of traffic and passers by during that busy evening, which would impact with a considerable crash? The PIP say "Rudy threw the boulder first, and then hid behind a bush, to see if anyone stirred indoors and then shinned up the wall later, as he was a superfit basketball player."

Police found no scuff marks on the wall. The window was shuttered, whether locked or not. The shutters would need to be opened before the window could smash freely, for the boulder to end up under the chair. This led Massei to believe any burglar would need to climb up at least twice, once to smash the window and open the shutter, and then again to enter. A boulder of that size could not be carried in a pocket, no matter how superfit a basketball player the burglar. The burglar would then have had to wriggle through a jagged sharp-glassed hole of circa 50cm, about nineteen inches, without fatally wounding oneself in the jugular.

The other factor is that the front door is on ground level and at an angle concealed to passersby and traffic on the street. A professional burglar would have no problem forcing the lock or using a crowbar, police style, having decided no-one was home.

Given the body behind a locked door and the puzzling features of the "burglary", you can see why police began to smell a rat.

>- Once they decided that, they decided that the Killer must have entered >the house through the front door.

>- To have entered through the door, the killer must have had a key or be let >in by someone with a key.

Given the third party was Rudy and he knew the occupants, it is logical to consider whether someone simply invited him in. Rudy is seen approaching the cottage and then going away and coming back later. The cctv appears to show a figure following in a female figure. Rudy himself says he went to get a kebab, having found no-one home. This is corroborated. Amanda and Kokomani were pinged from the same area of town that evening between 16:00 and 18:30.

Downstairs showed signs of disturbance. To get in, a key was hanging inside the upper level front door. Mez and Amanda had access to this key that weekend for Mez to feed the cat and water the plants. Nothing was stolen from downstairs.

>- There was no evidence that Meredith was meeting someone that night to >let them in.

Mez had been up until 5:00am the night before, believed she had a class the next day, was tired out, wanted to do some history textbook reading and go to bed ASAP. It is unlikely she was expecting anyone, and anyway, she was very chatty and would likely have mentioned it to her British friends. If she had arranged a secret rendezvous, there is no motive for rape and murder as it would have been consensual.

>- The only other key holders that were nearby that night were Filomena and >Amanda.


Filomena was away for the weekend with her boyfriend. So there was only Mez and Amanda around.

>- CCTV showed a woman heading to the Cottage shortly before the murder. >This woman was initially believed to be Amanda.

Too grainy to know for sure, but we do know Mez approached circa 20:55 - 21:05 and Amanda was in the Grimana vicinity where she took Patrick's message, circa 20:40. Kokomani claims to have seen Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait behind the bins.

>- CCTV showed a black man heading for the cottage around the time of the >murder

That would have been circa 20:45 the second time and Rudy did not leave until well over an hour and a half later, as the murrder is estimated to have been between 22:10 and 23:00 per Massei.

>- A black man was reported as seen running away from the area of the >crime scene

That was circa 22:30. Someone called Formica, who later said it was not Rudy and the man North African (Arabic) in appearance.

>- Amanda had a black boss and was seen speaking to him shortly after the >murder

Amanda chatted to Patrick in the town centre. Police were surveilling him.


>- Amanda and her black boss exchanged text messages on the night of the >murder shortly before it occurred.

That was Patrick. He sent a text at 20:17 which Amanda read at Grimana circa 20:40. They did not speak. Amanda deleted Patrick's text. Both Amanda and Raff switched off their phones between 20:45 and 21:00.

>- Amanda had been acting "strange" in the days after the murder.

Amanda tore out the pages of her diary for the days just before the murder. She had been drawing out circa €300 per diem, the sort of spending habit of a drug addict.

>Do you agree that this is a valid list of things that the Police knew on the >night they called Raf in?

Not really, as in any murder case, the first thing police do is routinely investigate the murder scene by a forensic team and do all the usual pathology investigations. They will have been told of Amanda and Raff's deeply offensive and insensitive behaviour at the questura, seen Amanda's email to the world and wondered what she was doing outside the cottage with a mop, claiming to have found the door swinging open, with spatters of blood and yet had a shower. Also that she didn't call the police at all, but rang Mom just before the body was discovered. That Raff rang his sister rather than the police who said the pair were surprised to see them. Raff rang the police circa 12:47 some fifteen minutes after the police arrived at 12:35, which Massei changed to 13:00 for a quiet life.

 

[Vixen]

As Prof. Vinci correctly found, there was no size 37 woman's shoeprint. It was a partial print of Guede's shoe. The sole pattern matched.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot make the facts fit your theory. Time to get rid of the theory.

Vinci was heavily mocked for photoshopping a Rudy-sized image of a print to shoe-horn down to the size of the print found.

Early reports - from Raff's own forensic expert - was that the radials on the print "were too indistinguishable".

Suddenly the size 42 print becomes "very sharp and a Rudy size 43! LOL.

 

[Vixen]

Paolo Liguori, TgCom24 network director, told the newspaper Corriere della Sera, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported Thursday.. "He will be able to recount his ordeal."
Liguori added that Sollecito was more credible than the "pretty girls" typically hired by Italian reality programs.
"I often ask myself, what experience do they have? How can they graduate at 26 and by the age of 30 be experts in criminology?" he said.
The ugly troll at exam iner is pissing herself.

Yes, someone who has intensively studied criminology for four years is likely to be more knowledgeable than someone who has committed a heinous crime.

 

[bagels]

G'day, Blue. Let's go through your list bit by bit. You wrote:

>Your argument is circular.

>She knows that Rudy was there and covered it up because she was guilty
>She is guilty because she covered up for Rudy's presence.

Rudy was there. He was a participant and co-accessory to the murder (which, btw, like Amanda and Raff, Rudy denies). Bruno & Marasca believed Amanda named Patrick, in case one of the neighbours saw Rudy leave the house, were she herself was present. However, it was beyond Bruno & Marasca's remit to fact-find and none of the parties had made this submission. In addition, we will be looking at "what the police knew" as of the time of the murder. Having said that, the PIP's core arguments are themselves circular, "Rudy was there, this proves he did it, but just because Amanda was there, it doesn't mean she did."


>I'm going to go through a scenario for you, but first, let's go through what >the Police knew or suspected prior to the interrogation and make sure we're >in agreement.

>- The Police started out with the belief that the break in was faked because >it was on the 2nd Story

Battistelli, recognised it ws a mise en scene because (a) glass was on top of the clothing (b) "nothing was stolen" and, (c) the clothes had been thrown around half-heartedly. Police see many staged burglary scenes, and they usually indicate (1) an attempt at insurance fraud, or (2) an attempt to cover up another crime and (3) to deflect suspicion.

It wasn't (1) and yes, there was a body behind another door, so Dr Watson, we can surmise (2) the perps are pointing to a random burglar s the perp. Why? Here we come up with (3) who needs to deflect suspicion away? Answer: someone who lived there and/or knew the victim.

OTOH was there a real burglar? Given the clothes were slung around before the window was broken, and that three laptops and gold jewellery were ignored, together with Amanda's rent money, with only the victim's cash, credit cards and phones stolen, we have to ponder whether the burglar had some kind of a grudge against the victim to target her alone. The savagery of the attack on Mez, seemed more than a simple case of a burglar being confronted with a resident, given that the rape scene also looked carefully staged, with the body undressed after death and mounted on a pillow.

As to the outside of the building, there was no spoilage to the foliage below, nor scuff marks on the sheer twelve foot four inch wall leading up to the window. A boulder of twelve inch radius and weighing a hefty nine pounds, or four point four kilograms was found under the chair of the room. From its angle to the broken pane, it appeared to have been thrown whilst the window was open from the inside, as the wooden shutter behind it, has a dent from the boulder thrown from such an angle.

Did the burglar throw the nine-pound boulder up twelve feet four inches from the ground outside, or even from six feet across the car park, with all sorts of traffic and passers by during that busy evening, which would impact with a considerable crash? The PIP say "Rudy threw the boulder first, and then hid behind a bush, to see if anyone stirred indoors and then shinned up the wall later, as he was a superfit basketball player."

Police found no scuff marks on the wall. The window was shuttered, whether locked or not. The shutters would need to be opened before the window could smash freely, for the boulder to end up under the chair. This led Massei to believe any burglar would need to climb up at least twice, once to smash the window and open the shutter, and then again to enter. A boulder of that size could not be carried in a pocket, no matter how superfit a basketball player the burglar. The burglar would then have had to wriggle through a jagged sharp-glassed hole of circa 50cm, about nineteen inches, without fatally wounding oneself in the jugular.

The other factor is that the front door is on ground level and at an angle concealed to passersby and traffic on the street. A professional burglar would have no problem forcing the lock or using a crowbar, police style, having decided no-one was home.

Given the body behind a locked door and the puzzling features of the "burglary", you can see why police began to smell a rat.

>- Once they decided that, they decided that the Killer must have entered >the house through the front door.

>- To have entered through the door, the killer must have had a key or be let >in by someone with a key.

Given the third party was Rudy and he knew the occupants, it is logical to consider whether someone simply invited him in. Rudy is seen approaching the cottage and then going away and coming back later. The cctv appears to show a figure following in a female figure. Rudy himself says he went to get a kebab, having found no-one home. This is corroborated. Amanda and Kokomani were pinged from the same area of town that evening between 16:00 and 18:30.

Downstairs showed signs of disturbance. To get in, a key was hanging inside the upper level front door. Mez and Amanda had access to this key that weekend for Mez to feed the cat and water the plants. Nothing was stolen from downstairs.

>- There was no evidence that Meredith was meeting someone that night to >let them in.

Mez had been up until 5:00am the night before, believed she had a class the next day, was tired out, wanted to do some history textbook reading and go to bed ASAP. It is unlikely she was expecting anyone, and anyway, she was very chatty and would likely have mentioned it to her British friends. If she had arranged a secret rendezvous, there is no motive for rape and murder as it would have been consensual.

>- The only other key holders that were nearby that night were Filomena and >Amanda.


Filomena was away for the weekend with her boyfriend. So there was only Mez and Amanda around.

>- CCTV showed a woman heading to the Cottage shortly before the murder. >This woman was initially believed to be Amanda.

Too grainy to know for sure, but we do know Mez approached circa 20:55 - 21:05 and Amanda was in the Grimana vicinity where she took Patrick's message, circa 20:40. Kokomani claims to have seen Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait behind the bins.

>- CCTV showed a black man heading for the cottage around the time of the >murder

That would have been circa 20:45 the second time and Rudy did not leave until well over an hour and a half later, as the murrder is estimated to have been between 22:10 and 23:00 per Massei.

>- A black man was reported as seen running away from the area of the >crime scene

That was circa 22:30. Someone called Formica, who later said it was not Rudy and the man North African (Arabic) in appearance.

>- Amanda had a black boss and was seen speaking to him shortly after the >murder

Amanda chatted to Patrick in the town centre. Police were surveilling him.


>- Amanda and her black boss exchanged text messages on the night of the >murder shortly before it occurred.

That was Patrick. He sent a text at 20:17 which Amanda read at Grimana circa 20:40. They did not speak. Amanda deleted Patrick's text. Both Amanda and Raff switched off their phones between 20:45 and 21:00.

>- Amanda had been acting "strange" in the days after the murder.

Amanda tore out the pages of her diary for the days just before the murder. She had been drawing out circa €300 per diem, the sort of spending habit of a drug addict.

>Do you agree that this is a valid list of things that the Police knew on the >night they called Raf in?

Not really, as in any murder case, the first thing police do is routinely investigate the murder scene by a forensic team and do all the usual pathology investigations. They will have been told of Amanda and Raff's deeply offensive and insensitive behaviour at the questura, seen Amanda's email to the world and wondered what she was doing outside the cottage with a mop, claiming to have found the door swinging open, with spatters of blood and yet had a shower. Also that she didn't call the police at all, but rang Mom just before the body was discovered. That Raff rang his sister rather than the police who said the pair were surprised to see them. Raff rang the police circa 12:47 some fifteen minutes after the police arrived at 12:35, which Massei changed to 13:00 for a quiet life.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, someone who has intensively studied criminology for four years is likely to be more knowledgeable than someone who has committed a heinous crime.

But of course he DIDN'T commit a heinous crime. He was acquitted. A year later and you still haven't learned. What a pity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, someone who has intensively studied criminology for four years is likely to be more knowledgeable than someone who has committed a heinous crime.

Who's "committed a heinous crime"?

Obviously you can't be referring to Sollecito, because a) there's zero credible, reliable evidence that he committed a heinous crime, b) he was acquitted in court of committing a heinous crime, and c) because of (a) and (b) together, and with the addition of other factors, it's a near-certainty that Sollecito never had anything whatsoever to do with any heinous crime.

So, since all people with even a modicum of critical thinking faculties and sufficient knowledge of this case could/would never refer to Sollecito someone who "committed a heinous crime", it's pretty clear that you must be referring to someone other than Sollecito. But I'm racking my brain trying to figure out who it could be that you ARE referring to. I can't come up with any reasonable candidates though. Can you help me out with an answer?

 

[LondonJohn]

Good lord, don't any of you people work for a living? The case is over. They are innocent. It's over. Done. Stick a fork in it.

Well, yes...... up to a point.

I'm assuming, for example, that you pop over to the Bigfoot threads and announce to the participants there (whether "pro-Bigfoot" or "anti-Bigfoot") that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved (which it has) in favour of Bigfoot being nothing more than a myth. And that you pop over to the 9/11 threads and mock all sides of the discussion there for continuing to discuss the matter - after all, it's totally clear that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact of two airliners and the ensuing fires, and the US Government had absolutely nothing to do with it (and no real forewarning of it). And that you pop over to the Moon Landing threads and.............

In addition to that point of principle, there's also the fact that this case ISN'T over yet - Knox is challenging her conviction for criminal slander via an application to the ECHR, and there are many interesting dynamics behind that issue. And there's also the potential aftermath of the police investigation and conduct, prosecutorial conduct and court conduct to examine - that may throw up some very interesting outcomes which affect not only the individuals concerned, but also the Italian criminal justice and law enforcement communities as a whole, and even international communities.

But apart from that......

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, yes...... up to a point.

I'm assuming, for example, that you pop over to the Bigfoot threads and announce to the participants there (whether "pro-Bigfoot" or "anti-Bigfoot") that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved (which it has) in favour of Bigfoot being nothing more than a myth. And that you pop over to the 9/11 threads and mock all sides of the discussion there for continuing to discuss the matter - after all, it's totally clear that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact of two airliners and the ensuing fires, and the US Government had absolutely nothing to do with it (and no real forewarning of it). And that you pop over to the Moon Landing threads and.............

In addition to that point of principle, there's also the fact that this case ISN'T over yet - Knox is challenging her conviction for criminal slander via an application to the ECHR, and there are many interesting dynamics behind that issue. And there's also the potential aftermath of the police investigation and conduct, prosecutorial conduct and court conduct to examine - that may throw up some very interesting outcomes which affect not only the individuals concerned, but also the Italian criminal justice and law enforcement communities as a whole, and even international communities.

But apart from that......

Ouch!!! Yikes, it takes Big Foot and 9/11 conspiracies to refute AoV's point!? Why I never.......

I'm the worst, I know so have at it. Still, reading Vixen go on about Raf calling the police AFTER the arrival of the Postals, when Judge Massei himself - a convicting judge - settled this in 2010 - friggin' 2010 SIX YEARS AGO!!! - gives credence to AoV's observation. And the timing of the call to the Carabinieri is only one of the whoppers Vixen uses to bolster......

What!? Thirty posts in a day? On that alone I sit in awe.

...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Membership Agreement. Moreover, any concerns or issues with forum management belong in the Forum Management section, not here.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, yes...... up to a point.

I'm assuming, for example, that you pop over to the Bigfoot threads and announce to the participants there (whether "pro-Bigfoot" or "anti-Bigfoot") that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved (which it has) in favour of Bigfoot being nothing more than a myth. And that you pop over to the 9/11 threads and mock all sides of the discussion there for continuing to discuss the matter - after all, it's totally clear that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact of two airliners and the ensuing fires, and the US Government had absolutely nothing to do with it (and no real forewarning of it). And that you pop over to the Moon Landing threads and.............

In addition to that point of principle, there's also the fact that this case ISN'T over yet - Knox is challenging her conviction for criminal slander via an application to the ECHR, and there are many interesting dynamics behind that issue. And there's also the potential aftermath of the police investigation and conduct, prosecutorial conduct and court conduct to examine - that may throw up some very interesting outcomes which affect not only the individuals concerned, but also the Italian criminal justice and law enforcement communities as a whole, and even international communities.

But apart from that......

Hey! Don't you go saying anything about Big Foot. They made a documentary about him and filmed it in my neighborhood. Ever see Harry and the Hendersons? A friend of mine had a role in the film.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

>I'm going to go through a scenario for you, but first, let's go through what >the Police knew or suspected prior to the interrogation and make sure we're >in agreement.

>- The Police started out with the belief that the break in was faked because >it was on the 2nd Story

Battistelli, recognised it ws a mise en scene because (a) glass was on top of the clothing (b) "nothing was stolen" and, (c) the clothes had been thrown around half-heartedly. Police see many staged burglary scenes, and they usually indicate (1) an attempt at insurance fraud, or (2) an attempt to cover up another crime and (3) to deflect suspicion.

Some relevant questions to ask yourself:

Given the appearance of a break in, what is the frequency that a) a break in occurred and b) the break in was staged? (Are more "break ins" staged or real?) What does this say about your prior probability? Apply Bayes theorem.

Also, (a) "glass was on top of the clothing." --> You don't say? A rock got thrown through the window and it landed on top of clothing? I am shocked. How does this imply the break in was "staged" at all?

(b) "Nothing was stolen." --> Was money from Meredith's purse not missing? How does this in any way favor "staged" vs. "real" break in, when the alternative hypothesis is that Meredith walked in on Rudy BEFORE he was allowed to steal anything of significance?

(c) "The clothes had been thrown around half-heartedly" --> Probably my favorite one. Clothes could have just as likely been "thrown around the room" before Rudy even broke in. There is literally no reason to think this implies a staged break in. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to think messy room = break in was staged? It's like they're trying to write an elaborate mystery novel using the dumbest reasoning possible.

 

[Grinder]

Some relevant questions to ask yourself:

Given the appearance of a break in, what is the frequency that a) a break in occurred and b) the break in was staged? (Are more "break ins" staged or real?) What does this say about your prior probability? Apply Bayes theorem.

Also, (a) "glass was on top of the clothing." --> You don't say? A rock got thrown through the window and it landed on top of clothing? I am shocked. How does this imply the break in was "staged" at all?

(b) "Nothing was stolen." --> Was money from Meredith's purse not missing? How does this in any way favor "staged" vs. "real" break in, when the alternative hypothesis is that Meredith walked in on Rudy BEFORE he was allowed to steal anything of significance?

(c) "The clothes had been thrown around half-heartedly" --> Probably my favorite one. Clothes could have just as likely been "thrown around the room" before Rudy even broke in. There is literally no reason to think this implies a staged break in. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to think messy room = break in was staged? It's like they're trying to write an elaborate mystery novel using the dumbest reasoning possible.

Clothes tossed after break-in should have glass under the clothes or at least not on top. Of course glass sticks to material and we don't know if F caused glass to fall when she checked the room. Also there is little actual proof just anecdotal. The money, credit cards and phones were never in F's room. F did report stolen make-up which the PGP say was to cover Amanda's wound and the PIP say was to cover for her drug stash or something like that.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vinci was heavily mocked for photoshopping a Rudy-sized image of a print to shoe-horn down to the size of the print found.

Early reports - from Raff's own forensic expert - was that the radials on the print "were too indistinguishable".

Suddenly the size 42 print becomes "very sharp and a Rudy size 43! LOL.

"Mocked" by whom other than TJMK, PMF and other PGPs?
Overlaying a copy of Guede's left shoe sole over the pillowcase prints to show a match is logical and obvious.

The prosecution expert found two shoeprints on the pillowcase. Vinci found five. Unlike the prosecution, Vinci used Crimescope, a forensic lighting source that enhances the contrast of the evidence against the background making it easier to see details. This is how Vinci as able to clearly line up the tread pattern of Guede's left shoe with that of the "woman's size 37 shoe".
No shoes of Amanda matched that print.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/pillow.jpg


Quote and cite the source of Raff's defense saying " the radials on the print "were too indistinguishable".Were those "early reports" perhaps BEFORE Prof. Vinci examined the prints with CrimeScope? Somehow I suspect they may even have been talking about the bloody shoeprints the police first attributed to Raff's shoes which were later identified as Guede's.