5. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #3 Footprints
Bare footprint in corridor matching Sollecito in EXACT dimensions
Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Series Overview
This is the third in my evidence series of posts, a main part of our de-hoaxing of Malcolm Gladwell..
This post responds further to Gladwell’s bizarre “no evidence” claim in his Talking To Strangers.
It summarizes four sets of bloody footprint and shoeprint evidence, which all must have happened in the minutes and perhaps hours after Meredith died.
The four sets are: (1) strong evidence of Sollecito’s bare foot on the bathmat, (2) strong evidence of Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare feet in the corridor and in Meredith’s room, (3) strong evidence of Guede’s shoeprints leading from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door, and (4) indicative evidence of Knox’s shoeprint in Meredith’s bedroom.
Only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have done.
Here’s a tip to our many new-ish readers, some great advice which might have curbed Gladwell’s disaster:
In the REAL world in the Italian courts these items (presented only once, at trial, and not at any appeal level) were very compelling items of evidence. Some topnotch experts, the best in Italy, presented their scientific outcomes at trial.
In the real world the thoroughly outgunned defenses had only weak and dispirited comebacks. ONLY what was put across and challenged in the courtrooms really mattered.
But in the FICTIONAL world of the Knox “public relations” army of online thugs with its appalling ignorance and misrepresentations, many of them malicious and self-serving, the hoaxing of these items really switched into overdrive.
NONE of their fictional ramblings mattered in Italy. Almost nobody in Italy was paying attention, and at times the defense teams were clearly irritated by them.
Here is a good hoax example.
In mid-trial in 2009 Kermit created the Telling Case Of The Doctored Footprint powerpoint which shows just how far these misrepresentations were taken.
Why can you believe we are not hoaxed or hoaxing?
Simple. Because every one of our analyses and reports is based on trusted reporting and court transcripts and an enormous body of official documents, many of them professionally translated.
The 2009 trial’s very intense evidence phase (some three times as many days as the defense phase) was never repeated. Only one jury observed it. But the Chieffi Supreme Court in 2013 and the Nencini Appeal Court in 2014 put many of the evidence findings at trial on steroids.
2. The Bathroom
It’s impossible to overstate the significance of the bare bloody footprint on the bathmat. It is such significant evidence for two reasons:
(1) it matched the precise characteristics of Raffaele Sollecito’s foot;
(2) it could not possibly belong to Rudy Guede because there were irreconciliable differences with Guede’s foot.
Here are our main analyses. The first post links to half a dozen earlier posts which in some cases go into great depth.
Click for Post: Questions For Sollecito: Can You Realistically Account For The Hard Evidence On The Bathroom Mat?
Click for Post: The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s
At Guede’s final 2010 (Supreme Court) appeal Judge Giordano pointed out there were bloody footprints not attributable to Rudy.
It is one of the reasons why all courts including three times the Supreme Court definitively ascertained there were multiple attackers.
Judge Giordano also noted that the forensic experts attributed the knife wounds on Meredith’s neck to different knives.
In the 2013-14 Supreme-Court-ordered repeat of the Knox and Sollecito appeals of the 2009 trial verdict, Judge Nencini pointed out these irreconcilable differences between the bloody footprint on the bathmat and Guede’s foot.
“Guede’s foot presents irreconcilable differences with the bathmat imprint“ (The Nencini report, page 275).
These definitive rulings need to be writ large for Malcolm Gladwell, Peter Gill and the other high-profile supporters of Amanda Knox in the media because it completely debunks the myth that Rudy Guede acted alone.
Rudy Guede shoeprints in red
3. The Corridor
There were both shoeprints and footprints in the corridor. The five Luminol-revealed footprints (from bare feet) were assigned by the experts Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia as follows: One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.
To repeat, only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have.
As I’ve already pointed out, numerous judges, including judges from the Italian Supreme Court, have noted that Guede didn’t even enter Filomena’s room - where the break-in was staged - or the blood-spattered bathroom after he had left Meredith’s room.
...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house, without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).
Note: “without any deviation”.
...the investigative data collected immediately after the event, such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight) and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 66).
Note: “along the path of the flight”.
The trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints is significant evidence also because it proves that he couldn’t have been one of those to stage the break-in at the cottage, or to track Meredith’s blood into either the small bathroom or Filomena’s bedroom.
The Italian Supreme Court definitively ascertained that Rudy Guede didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room.
And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant [Rudy Guede]. (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report, page 18).”
The Italian Supreme Court also definitively concluded (no possibility of appeal) that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed, and that she had been the one to track Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom.
Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).
Note: “proven fact”.
“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself’. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).
Judge Massei and Judge Nencini attributed the bare bloody footprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito because they matched their feet.
Both seem to have been rearranging the crime scene half-naked, barefoot, and possibly with gloves on.
Malcolm Gladwell and his favorite expert Peter Gill have completely ignored the trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol
Judge Massei made the common-sense observation that the Luminol must have been reacting to blood because there was an abundance of blood at the cottage and there’s no evidence of any other substance at the cottage that also reacts to Luminol.
“It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own *room+ leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable ‘’only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).
DNA expert Luciano Garofano says the Luminol-revealed footprints at the cottage are in blood because of their high luminosity and the DNA test indicated the presence of Meredith’s blood.
But let’s see what the prints actually mean. First of all, from their sheer luminosity they are blood. The DNA test showed Meredith’s blood in all cases except for two places in which we have a mixed Amanda and Meredith sample.
In 2015 Judge Marasca’s Fifth Chambers (wrongly entering into the evidence - it is actually the domestic-crimes court) dismissed the Luminol prints as evidence because the TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine) tests that are used to confirm the presence of blood were negative.
However, Luminol has been found to be five times more sensitive than TMB. This explains why the TMB tests yielded negative results, but the Luminol didn’t.
Both tests are presumptive. A negative TMB doesn’t mean that there was no blood. The fact that Meredith’s DNA was found in three of the traces highlighted by Luminol indicates that it was reacting to Meredith’s blood and not bleach.
Bleach destroys DNA. The Luminol couldn’t have been reacting to bleach anyway because bleach dissipates after a couple of days and there will be no trace left. The Luminol tests at the cottage were carried out on 18 December 2007, a deliberate and routine delay to allow bleach traces and other red herrings to disippate.
You could argue that the Luminol could have been reacting to another substance such as fruit juice or rust. But does anyone really believe Knox and Sollecito had dipped their feet into a bucket of fruit juice or rust and then walked around the cottage? The trial jury didn’t.
4. Meredith’s Bedroom
Two imprint experts from the Scientific Police - Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia - testified at the trial in Perugia that there was a woman’s bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room that matched Amanda Knox’s foot size.
Chief Inspector Boemia claimed the shoe print was made by a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, and it couldn’t have belonged to a man.
Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.
Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.’ (The Massei report, page 343).
Professor Luciano Garofano also believes there was a WOMAN’S bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room.
“Now is the question of the small shoeprint in the pillow. There is neither the heel nor the toe, so it’s hard to say the size of the shoe. You could estimate that has been made in the area of size 37 or 38, which of course, is Amanda’s size. Hard to prove, though.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).
The two defenses were provided with chance after chance to discredit these three areas of evidence. They never did, and their only comeback was to try to divert all eyes elsewhere.
5. Our Next Post
Click for Post: Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Staged Break-In
Posted by The Machine on 09/26/19 at 09:00 AM in
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
A number of Amanda Knox’s creepy obsessive supporters are claiming that the Supreme Court didn’t ascertain it is a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
They claim it was only hypothesised that she was present at the time of the murder. This is complete and utter nonsense. I’ve selected a number of quotations from Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report and Judge Martuscelli’s report to prove they’re completely wrong and dishonest.
“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact”. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).
“On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).
“the fact Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty.” (Judge Martuscelli’s report).
“especially with the presence of Knox in the house which was the scene of the crime, a presence held to be certainly true and amply proved in the judgment of the Court of Cassation, and thus has become ‘the judicial truth’”. (Judge Martuscelli’s report).
“It does appear clear, in the light of the judicial truth established in the acquittal ruling concerning the indisputable presence of Knox in 7 Via della Pergola at the time of the murder”. (Judge Martuscelli’s report).
Posted by The Machine on 09/26/19 at 05:58 PM | #
Hi Machine
This is caused by a “mistranslation” by Knox people of the Marasca-Bruno Report in 2015.
See part 4 of Machiavelli’s exposure of the hoax here:
As he says “It is a crime to deliberately garble Italian legal documents.”
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/19 at 08:33 AM | #
Hi Pete,
The Supreme Court ascertained it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because (1) she repeatedly admitted she was (2) she knew specific details about the murder (3) the mixed DNA samples are “eloquent proof” she washed Meredith’s blood off.
Marasca also stated Knox falsely accused Diya Lumumba of murder because she feared Guede would make retaliatory accusations against her:
“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant [Amanda Knox], insofar as it can be considered a strategy to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact Mr. Lumumba, like Mr. Guede, is a man of colour, hence the indication the first one would be safe in the event that the latter could have been seen by someone entering or exiting the apartment.”
Knox wouldn’t have known Guede was involved in Meredith’s murder, if she hadn’t been inside the cottage at Via della Pergola.
Marasca also categorically states it’s certain Knox was inside the house later in the report.
“On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).
It’s the creepy Tom Graham who has been claiming Marasca just hypothesised Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder on YouTube. He ran away with his tail between his legs when I provided him multiple quotations from Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report and Judge Martuscelli’s report.
Tom Graham, Francisco, I’m a teapot and Nancy Parker obsessively post on YouTube videos about the case, spreading lies and misinformation and challenging anybody who thinks Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith’s murder.
Another myth the lunatics have been trying to propagate is that Sollecito didn’t lie - he just got confused about the dates because the police didn’t let him look at a calendar and he related what he and Knox did on 31 October 2007. This is another stinking pile of horse manure.
This is Sollecito’s account of what he was doing and where he was on 31 October 2007:
“Let me write the reconstruction of the events [fatti]. Let’s start from October 31, the day I went to Francesco’s graduation (...) and I went to Paoloʹs house (...) and I then met with Amanda. I spent the day with her having dinner and then she went to the centre with her face painted like a kitten. I subsequently went out, painting my face as an abstract figure. I went for a walk in the centre and, after that, I met with Amanda again. We went straight home from there and we spent the night watching a film.“ (Raffaele Sollecito’s prison diary).
Let’s compare his version of what he was doing on 31 October 2007 with what he said he was doing on 1 November 2007 in his witness statement:
“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.” (Raffaele Sollecito’s witness statement, 5 November 2007).
As you can see, Sollecito’s account of what he was doing, who he was with and where he was on 31 October 2007 bears no relation to his account of what he was doing, who he was with and where he was on 1 November 2007.
Watching a film with Amanda Knox clearly isn’t the same as being home alone surfing the Internet from 11.00pm to 1.00am.
He doesn’t say anything about Knox and him painting their faces in his witness statement, going for a walk in the centre and meeting Knox.
Posted by The Machine on 09/27/19 at 09:06 AM | #
Hi Machine
Main media will leave YouTube in the dust soon on the hard facts of the case that we are sharing with them now. Your series is at the right level for this.
We intend to hunt down all the objective Tubes and embed them on a new page. That should give them all a boost.
As for Tom Graham, Francisco, I’m a teapot and Nancy Parker… Mafia tools. Not a good place to be now.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/19 at 12:37 PM | #
A thorough and hard-hitting summary of blood evidence, DNA proof. There were even visible bloody footprints from a woman’s ASICS brand shoe in Knox’s size seen on a pillow in the murder room.
Knox: guilty because of indisputable proof revealed by Luminol of Knox’s barefoot trail in blood and Sollecito’s barefoot trail in Meredith’s blood. As for the shod feet found on pillow, I bet Edda or Deanna or some friend of Knox knows full well she did wear a pair of ASICS tennis shoes, which no doubt Knox quickly discarded after the crime.
It is unbelievable how so much hard evidence was handwaved away! It’s sickening, where’s the justice? Truth is slain and murderers walk free.
Surely Knox and Sollecito cannot bear to look at this website and see proof of their deed for the world to see.
It’s so strange that Supreme Court determined she was in the cottage washing off Meredith’s blood yet was not involved in the crime. Rudy got all the blame for using the knife, so that allowed Knox and Raf to walk. But Knox’s DNA was also found on a knife, along with the deceased’s on same knife.
Even without the knife evidence, the barefoot bloody prints say it all.
Posted by Hopeful on 09/28/19 at 12:30 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry 6. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #4 Faked Break-In
Or to previous entry 4. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #2 Mixed Blood