Saturday, June 08, 2013

Questions For Sollecito: Can You Realistically Account For The Hard Evidence On The Bathroom Mat?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



[From one of many analyses published in Italy (this was in Il Messagero) of hard evidence against RS]

Your legal future and the book

In the next few months you are expected to face two different courts in Florence.

One will be a new appeal in Meredith’s case in place of the illegal appeal annulled in March by the Supreme Court, and one will decide if you attempted serious obstruction of justice in ascribing many crimes to the officers of the Perugia court. One claim your own father Francesco on Italian national TV has already said was false.

The last thing you need is two prosecutions demonstrating that you invented unrealistic straw man after straw man to throw off the legal process by illegal means, by encouraging pressure on the court from an inflamed and ill-informed public.

And yet your book appears to us to contain at least a hundred straw men. Less-so but similarly in the book by Knox. This definition of a straw man is from the Wikipedia website.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

The straw man of the bloody footprint on the mat

Let us start this series of questions to you with the bloody bathmat footprint, and how you characterized it at different points in your book as part of your attempted proof that Guede acting alone did the crime.

Here is the full extent of your straw-man attempt to prove that that print was actually from Rudy Guede’s foot.

(a) [Page X11] The intruder was quickly identified as Rudy Guede, an African immigrant living in Perugia with a history of break-ins and petty crimes. His DNA was found all over Meredith’s room, and footprints made in her blood were found to match his shoes.  Everything at the crime scene pointed to a lone assailant, and a single weapon.  Guede repeatedly broke into houses by throwing a rock through a window, as happened here

(b) [page 23] Amanda went ahead with her shower, only to notice a small bloodstain on one of the washbasin taps. It looked like menstrual blood. Was Meredith, who shared the bathroom with her, having some sort of problem? It was unlike her to leave things less than immaculate. Maybe she’d run out to a pharmacy. Then again, it was just one small stain; perhaps she missed it.

(c) [Page 79]  When my defense team examined the official paperwork, they noticed that the analysis of the footprints—including extensive inquiry into the length and shape of the foot likely to have produced them—had been conducted by two members of the Polizia Scientifica in Rome, working not in their official capacity but as private consultants charging thousands of euros to Mignini’s office. One of the analysts, Lorenzo Rinaldi, was a physicist, not a specialist in anatomy, and the other, Pietro Boemia, was a fingerprint technician with no further scientific credentials. That begged the question: if Mignini’s office felt it needed to contract the job out to private consultants, why wouldn’t it go to people with more pertinent qualifications? The whole thing stank.

(d) [page 192]  We didn’t bother to ask for a review of the footprint analysis by Rinaldi and Boemia because we had demonstrated some elementary measuring errors and felt confident that would suffice.

And how this collapses when compared with hard facts

(1) Our main poster the Machine described at the time how the prosecution and their witnesses did a terrific job on this evidence at trial in May 2009, and how your defense had virtually no comeback at all.

Two bloody footprints were attributed to Raffaele Sollecito. One of them was revealed by luminol in the hallway, and the other one was easily visible to the naked eye on the blue bathmat in Meredith’s and Knox’s shared bathroom.

Lorenzo Rinaldi excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat was the right size or shape to belong to Knox or Guede instead of Sollecito: “You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

Andrea Vogt’s report for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer shows just how meticulous and painstakingly detailed the analysis of the bloody footprints was:

“All the elements are compatible with Mr. Sollecito’s foot,” Rinaldi said, pointing with a red laser to a millimeter-by-millimeter analysis of Sollecito’s footprint projected onto a big-screen in the courtroom. He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bath mat could possibly be Guede’s or Knox’s.

“Those bare footprints cannot be mine,” said Sollecito in a spontaneous statement…. But the next witness, another print expert, again confirmed Rinaldi’s testimony, that the print, which only shows the top half of the foot, matches the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot….

Rinaldi’s detailed Powerpoint described methods of image analysis, metric and grid measurement of the ball, toe, heel and arch, as well the particular characteristics of the footprints and shoeprints as well as the actual shoes and feet of Knox, Sollecito and Guede. The three suspects gave their footprints and fingerprints at police headquarters.”

Another print expert also testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.

Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, asked Dr. Stefanoni to confirm that other substances like bleach or fruit juice can also react to luminol.

Dr. Stefanoni acknowledged that they do, but pointed out that biologists who work regularly on crime scenes distinguish easily between the bright blue glow of a blood trace and the much fainter glow from other reactive substances.



(2) Our main poster Kermit in effect recreated a version of the Powerpoints which Dr Rinaldi walked the court through, in these Powerpoints here.

You will see they are detailed and very precise, and it is your footprint and not Guede’s footprint which remorselessly emerges on the bathroom mat.

After viewing the damning nature of those slides, read at the end what Kermit concludes: You WERE present at the scene of the crime. You might not have had murderous intent, or wielded the fatal blow, but you and your bare foot were there. 


(3) Our main poster SomeAlibi, a trial lawyer, recently warned here that even ONE piece of evidence if firm and inexplicable enough could be enough for a jury to decide to put you away.

There are at least four pieces of evidence that tie you to the scene of the crime: those two footprints, your still-unexplained DNA on Meredith’s bra, and sworn eye-witness testimony of Rudy Guede that he saw you there.

That is in addition to dozens of other evidence points which include cellphone evidence, computer evidence, myriad alibis, an admission that you lied, and another eyewitness account.

SomeAlibi then goes even beyond Kermit in his analysis to show how definitive the identification of YOUR footprint was. See his chart here which leaves zero room for any doubt. He comments on it as follows:

I present here a summarized view of critical evidence which suggests with devastating clarity that Raffaele Sollecito was present the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher. No lengthy text, no alternate versions, just measurements.

This FIRMLY places Sollecito in the very room where Meredith was attacked and killed.

In the small bathroom right next to Meredith’s bedroom was a bathmat. On it was found a bloody naked right footprint of someone walking straight towards the shower in the bathroom. The blood is that of Meredith.

The footprint is not Amanda Knox’s - it is too big - but we can compare it to the prints taken of Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito.

In Judge Massei’s report the multiple measurements were detailed in the narrative over many sentences and, in that form, their immediate cumulative impact is less obvious. It is only by tabulating them, that we are forcefully hit by not one but two clear impressions:

The measurements are extremely highly correlated to the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito in twelve separate individual measurements. In themselves they would be enough for a verdict of guilt in all but a few court cases.

But they also show a manifest LACK of correlation to the right foot of Rudy Guede, the only other male in that cottage on the night. Have a look for yourself.



(4) That Rudy Guede had attacked Meredith alone needs proof your own defense lawyers miserably failed to provide at trial, and did the opposite of at the annulled appeal.

At the annulled appeal they put the erratic jailbirds Alessi and Aviello on the stand, in a desperate attempt to explain who were the THREE perps that the crime scene recreation and autopsy had decisively demonstrated attacked Meredith. 


(5) Accordingly your point (a) above is false in every respect.  Guede was NOT quickly identified, precisely because Knox fingered Patrick only. Knox if anything diverted attention AWAY from Guede as he did in turn from her.

Guede had zero proven history of break-ins and petty crimes, and Judge Micheli became angry at such unfounded claims. Guede had no prior criminal record at all. He had only been back in Perugia for a few weeks after an extended stay up north.

His DNA was not found “all over” Meredith’s room. A major surprise in fact was how few traces of him were found.  The recreation of the crime scene and the autopsy both pointed AWAY FROM a lone assailant, not toward.

From Meredith’s wounds, it was evident that two and perhaps three knives had been used, and not a single weapon. What lone intruder carries or uses two or three knives?

Guede’s shoeprints in blood exit Meredith’s room and lead straight to the front door. There is no evidence at all that he removed his shoe, for whatever reason, and somehow left only ONE footprint several yards from Meredith’s room. .

And all this together with the footprints in blood outside the door matching the feet of both yourself and Knox is why the Supreme Court confirmed Guede’s guilt only “in concorso” (with others).


(6) Our main poster Sara posted on our Sollecito Book page that you made a false claim in your point (b) above about the obviousness of the bathroom blood stains.

Raffaele tries to underplay the presence of blood in the bathroom by claiming that the print on the bathmat was hardly visible or distinguishable as blood.  Even in his interview with Katie Couric he claimed that it was not obvious that the stain on the bathmat was blood.

The problem? Amanda in her email during the initial days of the investigation says “it was after i stepped out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the bathroom.it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet”

When Knox herself admits that she knew it was blood on the bathmat, why is Sollecito claiming otherwise?



(7) Our main poster Vivianna posted this correction on our Sollecito Book page in response to your claim (c) that the government experts were hired guns - and the wrong ones.

The reality, according to Judge Massei, is quite different. [the experts were:]

1. Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi (Engineer, Principal Technical Director of the State Police, director of the three sections which compose the Identity Division of the ERT - Esperti Ricerca Tracce)

2. Chief Inspector Pietro Boemia of the ERT in Rome

And their tasks involved analyzing both shoeprints and footprints

Sollecito forgets to mention that their first consultancy report, with regard to a footprint left by a Nike shoe, was actually favorable to him.  Unlike a previous analysis which had attributed the shoeprint to him, this team of experts correctly attributed it to Guede. 

However, since the second consultancy task resulted in an identification of a footprint with Sollecito’s, the experts are clearly “out to get him” like everyone else involved in the investigation. It doesn’t seem to occur to Sollecito that if that had been the case, they wouldn’t have bothered to correct the previous consultant’s work on the shoeprints.

Your fate going forward from the above

You have as Americans say opened a real can of worms here. A prosecutor’s delight. At both the trials you will face in Florence, the prosecutions will surely raise all of these questions and more, and then ask:

WHY did you need to create a straw man? You were clearly there; why, and what did you do?




Comments

Right on. You have revealed further the truth of the foot print belonging to RS.
I wonder why IIP altered photos to make bloody footprint look like Rudy’s??

Posted by Bettina on 06/08/13 at 08:21 PM | #

Yes, the footprint certainly looks like Sollecito’s, but the DNA on the bra clasp seems like a more primary piece of evidence, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat is secondary.

The straw man arguments are typical of what a legal defense will do as a last resort. What would you do if you were the defense, other than plead guilty?

Posted by Domingo on 06/08/13 at 10:10 PM | #

Hi Domingo

Good points. The bathmat puts RS in the house for sure. He could always argue plead he came in after the attack though it is really far too late for that.

The DNA puts him right in the room and part of the attack on Meredith. The DNA evidence still stands of course after the annullment, and all the “it MIGHT have been contaminated” mutterings really dont amount to a hill of beans as no contamination was ever proved.

If his stubbornness and arrogance and callousness toward the victim’s family are not shaken out of him by his father and counsel he deserves life, and could get it. The book is a net negative going forward.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/08/13 at 11:40 PM | #

Hi Bettina

Thanks for the reminder on IJP’s doctored print to make it seem the size of Guede’s.  Kermit later posted an addition that addressed the idiocy of Fischer’s lost little band.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/powerpoints_12_the_telling_case/

Added: Kermit earlier posted another excellent Powerpoint which included all that was known then about all of the trace evidence, the bathmat footprint and other footprints included.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/powerpoints_trace_evidence_seems_to_confirm_more_than_one_perpetrator_/

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/08/13 at 11:42 PM | #

IIP presents doctored photographs (footprints on the bathmat, besides many others). IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN WHY?

How do you know RG did it alone? (Or, it is the same way AK knew of the scream that made her cover her ears)- IF YOU WERE NOT THERE??

If you were not satisfied with the qualifications of the consultants, why the defense did not bring it up before the judge? At least he was an INDEPENDENT expert (I believe).

I would love to know what kind of bleach or fruit juice you wash your feet with.

By the way, how many thousands of euros you (and your pop) has spent so far on YOUR trial?

Posted by chami on 06/09/13 at 03:22 AM | #

Hi Chami

We keep a running list of the dirty tricks spotted and will one day post it. If there’s any case in history with more dirty tricks played we’d like to know of it. They are up in the dozens and dozens. As you say WHY?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/09/13 at 09:54 AM | #

Good post, Thank you.

I’d go a bit farther than saying no contamination was proved. When the history of every piece of the contested evidence was examined, it failed to show any way in which it might have happened.

Extraordinary dirty tricks in extraordinry number, I totally agree. I hope there will be a bit of legal slappage applied.

Posted by bucketoftea on 06/09/13 at 02:07 PM | #

@P. Quennell

The bathmat puts RS in the house for sure.

Not on its own,it doesn’t. It could be the print of a person unknown. However since the bra DNA puts Sollecitto at the crime scene, that somewhat narrows the universe of people whose foot it might be. The important fact about the footprint is that since it cannot be Guede’s, it proves that Guede did not act alone.

Posted by Domingo on 06/09/13 at 07:36 PM | #

Does the footprint indicate someone stepping out of the shower onto the mat?

If so, when did this person have the shower, and why, at that time ?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/09/13 at 07:49 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

Your question has bothered me from the beginning.

1. I am unable to determine and decide alone if the footprint is made in raw blood or diluted blood (after a not so careful washing of the foot). My guess, it is a pure guess at this time, is that it was originally made in raw blood but the bathmat was subsequently washed. Unfortunately, some mark remained. Why they did not dispose of the bathmat properly is a mystery but then they thought…

2. A part of the foot touched the floor but there was no visible mark on the floor. This supports the clean-up theory.

3. Apparently there are other footprints on the bathmat but they may not be usable for identification. Nevertheless, AK could identify the footprint to be made in blood (menstral or otherwise) the next morning.

4. Most of the pictures show blood as red; but it is more likely to be seen as dirty red, brown or black. I suspect most of the photographs have been processed.

5. I can think of only one reason for visiting the bathroom: to wash the blood off the feet. I do not think they took a full shower (not even the next day).

6. Naturally this must have been done at the last moment; after the rest has been cleaned and washed. They must have disposed off the clothes they were wearing that evening. It would be nice to hear from others what clothes they were wearing that night.

Posted by chami on 06/10/13 at 02:01 AM | #

Hi Domingo.

Very true, the print might have been argued as of that of a foot of someone unknown, and the DNA on the bra clasp is the strongest proof of all.

The DNA evidence is likely to stand just as Judge Massei signed off on it in late 2009, as there will be no repeat of the illegal Conti-Vecchiotti dog and pony show (Cassation already declared it illegal).

And it is hard to see how the defense could now start to argue that the footprint was someone else’s. They never did before. They merely moved on very quickly from this evidence, averting their gaze, as they did with all the other evidence outside the door.

Though Sollecito’s defense in the annulled appeal brought in Alessi and Aviello, the other dog and pony show, who (unconvincingly) between them pointed to a total of four missing others (only Aviello’s missing brother was named) I don’t recall them ever trying to argue that the print was from one of their feet.

With Cassation’s pending written ruling on the annulled appeal and new appeal, on the one hand, and the two incriminating books, on the other, the defenses are really between a rock and a hard place. They will know the two are cooked, and they may as well just phone their arguments in.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/10/13 at 01:14 PM | #

@Domingo

Well, that is not the way our basic logic works.

If we have 10B people on earth today, the probability that it (the footprint) can be anyone’s, is simply 1 in 10B (10-10).

However, on the date and time the footprint was made, only people within the local town and present on the date concerned can be considered. Let us say only about 10,000 people in the town could have been present in the apartment on that date and time. The probability then drops to 10-4- a big drop.

The police is still considering other restrictions. They belive (a very reasonable assumption) that the footprint belongs to one known to the victim. Perhaps the victim knew around 100 people in Perugia who could reasonably be present on that date and time (in the apartment). The probabililty then reduces to 1 in 100!

You may object only to the last part: they have considered only a few (RG and RS) selected people to verify, instead of checking on about 100 people known to the victim. We have eliminated the 98 other people from the various alibis.

The process is fair. Out of the 100 people known to the victim, 50 are females with very small feet! Another 40 had sound alibis (they were present elsewhere) and the footprint cannot belong to them.

Let us consider a revision. The footprint belonged to a complete stranger not known to the victim. Then we must consider about 10,000 possibilities. This is where is bra-clasp comes in the picture. What is the probabililty that both DNA and footprint of a stranger will match?

It is a black art, but not really difficult to grasp. We need to reduce continously the target population.

I hope I have made it clear.

Posted by chami on 06/10/13 at 02:04 PM | #

@chami

I understand what you are saying, but all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt that the footprint belonged to an unnamed co-conspirator.

The bra DNA evidence is much harder to get rid of. If I was a juror, I would believe it.

Of course the single footprint suggests a clean-up of the crime scene to remove other foot prints leading up to the footprint on the bath mat. If the jury believes that there was a crime scene clean up, then clearly this implicates people known to Kercher rather than total strangers. Having robbed and killed a stranger, one does not usually hang around for hours doing laundry and housework.

Anyway, bottom line is that the jury have to make up their minds whether Knox and Sollecito are telling the truth or a bunch of lies.

If I was a juror I would most probably go for the lies, but you may remember the Casey Anthony case. I could not see any reasonable doubt at all that Anthony had killed her child or played a role in illegally disposing of the body if the child died of natural causes or accidentally, but the jury thought differently.

Posted by Domingo on 06/10/13 at 09:28 PM | #

Thanks for all the effort (everybody).
They (the accused) already know what is coming down the pike…and so do their team of disinformation.

Posted by Bettina on 06/10/13 at 10:18 PM | #

Hi Domingo

“...all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt…”

Well, the trial has been and gone, and the footprint counted against Sollecito. There is no obvious way this can be brought up again, and defense ran away from challenging it the first time. If it was easy to cast reasonable doubt on it, I presume the defense would have given it a shot.

Before he went over to the dark side, Ted Simon warned against presuming that casting reasonable doubt on individual items of evidence like this would be enough to lead to an acquittal, because there is so much of it. See the first video in this post.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_prosecution_case_is_very_formidable/  Judge Hellmann DID try to engineer an acquittal by ridiculing some individual evidence points and ignoring others and his attempt was annulled back in March.

Trial lawyer SomeAlibi regards this evidence as really powerful. His post is linked to above.  Check out his table of all the measurements involved which narrow down the possibilities on Chami’s lines.

The DNA evidence on the bra clasp though does remain the most conclusive. The defense really did have to hammer at that (having delayed its collection for 47 days) but their pet DNA consultants C&V are on the skids now and they seem to have no comeback.

We need a volunteer (hint to Domingo) to write this up as a question to Sollecito.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/11/13 at 12:32 AM | #

I always wondered why there seemed to be so little forensic attention paid to Sollecito’s flat - or is it the lack of full Engligh translation of the first trial proceedings?  That’s where two of those involved in the sexual assault and killing went after to “sleep” (? or didn’t, or showered repeatedly, or smoked herb and had sex that they don’t remember definitively - not!), then later “awake” at 10am (HAH; no, let’s turn on the phones to establish an alibi, then being safely back at RS’ place) & return to clean up at the cottage, being caught with mop and bucket out front having not called police of ANY variety…

I’ve read several books on this case, and this site very frequently for years, but does anyone know more detail of the police investigation of RS’ apt.?  Is the smell of bleach something that someone testified to (an officer?), or a matter of discussion outside the court?  Did anyone interview his landlord, the tenants in the building?  When the authorities searched his apt., what was it really that drew their attention to the knife carring Meredith’s DNA?  He had so many knives, does anyone know if others were tested?

If a knife near the crime scene were found now, and it was proved to have Mez’ DNA on it with one of the other accused or convicted (or someone else’s, maybe some passers-by who didn’t know what it was), could it (evidence like that) be introduced in the upcoming repeat of the appeal trial?

Thx., and sorry for typos or unclear thinking, but it’s very late here.

Posted by all4justice on 06/11/13 at 04:52 AM | #

Yes, I’ve wondered about the scene at Sollecito’s.
I would be interested to see a photo of the kitchen interior.

I would also like to see any photographic material of AK and RS and their environments circa the date of the crime. I’ve seen one or two clips, which are most informative…any links to others would be most appreciated.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/11/13 at 05:55 AM | #

Sometime ago here, there was a schematic concerning sollecitos foot print where it was proven conclusively that the foot print was his. That is as opposed to Rude Guede’s foot print. Where did that go? On the other hand what I find invigorating is that without the other be it Knox or Sollecito they will both fall. Even now they are obviously against each other.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/11/13 at 05:48 PM | #

Is RS’s bathmat footprint thought to have been made at the time of the murder or during the clean up? And why would he have been barefooted?

Posted by Odysseus on 06/11/13 at 06:39 PM | #

It is undisputed that Raffaele Sollecito had a distinctive hammer-toe deformity of the 2nd toe of his Right Foot (but had no distinctive deformity of his left foot).

These undisputed facts are crucial to comprehending the evidence in this case, especially because part of the evidence is a sole-print undisputedly stained with Meredith Kercher’s blood.

Sollecito’ Right foot, with its distinctive hammer-toe, demonstrates his presence at the murder-scene.  MASSEI addressed this on p352-353 of the Translation:

“Bearing in mind the claimed importance of orthopaedic and medical forensic competence in performing this type of investigation, Professor Vinci stressed the value of some particularly individualising details of the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito, revealed by the said examination, consisting of: the fact that his second toe does not touch the ground (the so-called “hammer” position of the distal phalange)connected to a slight case of valgus on the right big toe, and the fact that the distal phalange of the big toe also does not touch the ground, (meaning that there is a 353 distinct separation between the print of the ball of the foot and the print of the big toe in the footprint of the accused).

Given these two features which make Sollecito’s foot morphologically distinctive, Professor Vinci’s study basically arrives at the assertion that, while the second toe of Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot is entirely absent from the footprints known to be made by him, on the contrary the footprint on the bathmat does contain the imprint of the second toe.

Professor Vinci stressed the value of some particularly individualising details of the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito, revealed by the said examination, consisting of: the fact that his second toe does not touch the ground (the so-called “hammer” position of the distal phalange) connected to a slight case of valgus on the right big toe, and the fact that the distal phalange of the big toe also does not touch the ground, (meaning that there is a 353 distinct separation between the print of the ball of the foot and the print of the big toe in the footprint of the accused).

Given these two features which make Sollecito’s foot morphologically distinctive, Professor Vinci’s study basically arrives at the assertion that, while the second toe of Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot is entirely absent from the footprints known to be made by him, on the contrary the footprint on the bathmat does contain the imprint of the second toe.”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 06/11/13 at 07:12 PM | #

@cardiol

Why is the argument repeated three times? [Mistkae in cutting and pasting now removed. Pete.]

So the footprint may not be Sollecito’s? Of course the characteristics of a bathmat would be different from those of a hard floor, as you would expect it to be sponge-backed and the foot would sink deeper.

I wonder if Sollecito would mind soaking his foot in (animal) blood and then stepping on a bathmat of the same type, so we can clear up this matter once and for all. Perhaps he could do this on live TV.

Posted by Domingo on 06/11/13 at 07:25 PM | #

I have a hammer toe on my right foot, second toe. It is sometimes called arachnadactyl.
It is indeed distinctive. The effect of it is that the last joint turns the ‘wrong’ way, - upwards. Therefore the toes cannot grip anything. But they do touch the ground ,variably, on softer surfaces.
I recognize it…though it isn’t mine!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/11/13 at 08:22 PM | #

Come on guys its Sollecito’s foot. Although I have no doubt that any defense will try this one on. Of course then there is the DNA.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/11/13 at 09:53 PM | #

Hi Cardiol and others who posted since.

Cardiol, quoting only that portion from Massei of the testimony of Sollecito consultant Vinci in isolation is making this confusing for readers. I did warn you in an email!

Professor Vinci is arguing that it is Guede’s foot, not Sollecito’s. If we are going to quote it at all, then it is vital that we also include what Massei wrote next.

Massei DISMISSED Vinci’s conclusions. He dismissed them because Vinci had made a claim about the large toe which did not stand up. Massei concluded the print was indeed from the foot of Sollecito.

Massei read nothing into the fact that the raised toe left an imprint on that bathmat - as Domingo and SeekingUnderstanding note above, that was a textile mat of a certain thickness into which a foot would sink. The raised toe would show.

The imprint Sollecito provided at the police station was on a hard flat surface. The raised toe might not show, as it didnt. In his book Sollecito ingnored Massei’s finding. He brushed right past this finding, to again claim that it was Guede’e foot

What Domingo suggests (that RS produce a new print) probably would have been done and included in the book IF there was confidence it would point to Guede. But once again, Sollecito and his team blinked.

The point of the main post still stands.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/11/13 at 10:19 PM | #

One of the many strengths of the team here and on PMF as opposed to those wannabees who leaped in later with their conspiracy theories to support AK and RS is that we really followed the fine details of the court hearings in 2009, and they didnt.

We seem to be light-years ahead of them now on the Cassation outcomes and Mignini situation and what is headed down the pike in Florence and Bergamo. Reading Knox and Sollecito and their daffy fans is almost like being in a time warp.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/11/13 at 10:49 PM | #

Hi everyone,

I have a comment/question on another topic. Does anyone know why Knox never mentions being visited by Rocco Girlanda in her book? Mr. Girlanda did many favors for Knox when he visited her in prison, including obtaining a computer for her use and bringing her numerous books.

Did she have a falling out with him after he released a book (which supposedly he talked to her about when he was only just starting to write it)? Or did his visits, as a representative of the Italy-USA Foundation, not jive with her tale of misery, loneliness, and mistreatment in prison?

Posted by devorah on 06/12/13 at 02:51 AM | #

Hi Devorah

We are just starting our series of questions for Knox and this is intended as one of them. I’d say you figured out correctly both reasons.

First, on Girlanda’s book. If the intention was to make her seem sane and normal it did the opposite and made him look seriously loopy as well. Knox may not realize it but a number of the “white knights” first emerged slobbering over her (Fischer, Heavey, Moore) and later tried to change their tune.

Girlanda also emerged slobbering, but he never changed his tune. Kinky to the end - there were rumors later that his wife had thrown him out.

Second, on Knox’s claimed hard times in Capanne, Girlanda would be a lousy witness to that, as we explained back here:

*************

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_trainwreck_1_claims_about_prison_traumas_widely_cont/

(3) Contradicted by Member of Parliament Rocco Girlanda

Mr Girlanda visited Amanda Knox in prison approximately 20 times for the specific purpose (or so he claimed) of checking her prison conditions. In fact that was the only way he could legally visit her, although oddly enough a book and a number of other pro-Knox actions emerged - even a complaint to the President about the Perugia prosecutors.

After Knox was released late in 2011 Mr Girlanda specifically praised the prison staff in this statement.

Perugia Prison Police The Example of Professionalism.

The PdL Party member of parliament Rocco Girlanda praises the officers of the Perugia prison.

“I’ve had the opportunity to describe to the Minister of Justice, Nitto Palma, the great professional behaviour shown by the Perugia Penitentiary Police with regards to the court case that saw Amanda Knox as protagonist, a behaviour that I had always observed during the course of my visits to the Capanne prison in the last two years.”  So says Rocco Girlanda, Umbrian deputy of the PdL, after the conclusion of the appeal trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“In recent months I have had the opportunity to make dozens of visits to the prison, which also included some of the petitions presented by the senior management of the premises and my commitment in this regard, always finding, that starting from the director Bernardina Di Mario, continuing with the Penitentiary Police commander Fulvio Brillo, up to the entire personnel employed, the helpfulness, the courtesy and their professionalism which allows me to say that Perugia is a model structure on the national landscape, managed and directed in the best way and with a large dose of humanity on the part of the staff employed.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/12/13 at 10:22 AM | #

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your response! I can’t wait to see the questions you are compiling for Knox…it would be very interesting to see how she could possibly address some of these inconsistencies in her statements. Even with something as such as her account of her time in prison, there are still so many inconsistencies.

Posted by devorah on 06/12/13 at 07:13 PM | #

P.S. I’m still reading Knox’s book and I *just* came across a couple of mentions of Rocco Girlanda. However, considering how much he claims to have helped her while she was in prison, the mentions seem to minimize his visits and efforts to help her.

Posted by devorah on 06/13/13 at 02:30 AM | #

The nice thing is that by the time this goes to trial the American public, (being only capable of absorbing a thirty second sound bite,) will not take as much notice as the screamers in the Amanda Knox fan club want. Since the trial will probably go unnoticed it will therefore create nothing in the way of any financial return which of course is what the forces of evil are hoping for. The more Knox is exposed to any media glare the more people will realize that she and Sollecito are guilty since she can’t keep it up for long.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/13/13 at 08:24 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox Demonizes Dr Mignini, Maliciously Invents An Illegal Interrogation On The Night Of 5-6 Nov 2007

Or to previous entry The City Of Perugia And Perugia University Award The First-Ever Meredith Kercher Scholarship