Powerpoints #12: Telling Evidence Against Sollecito The Experts Seem To Have Got Absolutely Right

Click here if you have (1) Windows MS Office or Powerpoint Viewer (downloadable here), or (2) Apple Mac iWorks Keynote or Apache OpenOffice.


Previously in the Powerpoint series we presented visually some of the evidence that helped Judge Micheli to conclude that there was more than one perpetrator.

During most of the court sessions in May 2009, Lorenzo Rinaldi and Patrizia Stefanoni and their formidable evidence-processing teams from Rome added a lot to what we know about the forensic evidence found in the house.

Many of the images and diagrams they used appeared in the media, particularly the Italian media. It is now possible to examine even more closely what the evidence suggests about the perpetrators.

Sollecito already has tough evidence against him in a number of dimensions.

Added now to the woes of his defense team is the analysis of a bloody footprint that was found on a bathmat in the bathroom of Meredith and Amanda Knox.

The Powerpoint title refers to a barren tree.

This reference is explained in the conclusion of the presentation. In essence, it refers to a marked tendency of perpetrators to NOT add enough incidental detail to their stories to be really convincing.

Sollecito has so far come up with many barren trees - minimalist stories in which none of them have enough incidental detail to convincingly explain evidence like this.

Posted by Kermit on 06/08/09 at 09:00 PM in

Tweet This Post


For a few minutes there, the link to open the Powerpoints was by way of a click on the image at the top.

Not everybody saw that, our fault, and now the link to this excellent show is there more conventionally in the body of the text.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/09/09 at 12:14 AM | #

Another outstanding presentation by Kermit. So how can anyone possibly say, “there is no evidence”, as we have heard defense interests shout time and time again. To my eye there is plenty of forensic evidence. Saying it doesn’t exist is like trying to argue that the world is flat - we all know better. So wouldn’t it be helpful if the defense teams took center stage and offered up some sound explanations for all that has been discovered and not repeat the impossible notion of “contamination” or something equally as farfetched, such as investigative incompetence. These claims have been repeatedly demonstrated to be baseless. Could it be that this is the only angle that the defense can pursue in the face of such compelling evidence?

Posted by Fly By Night on 06/09/09 at 08:21 AM | #

Excellent work, Kermit. As outlined within, the most appalling aspect of this whole sorry episode, that which i find hardest to stomache is the fact that these two, guilty or not, KNOW THE TRUTH! I am convinced of their guilt, however. TJM.

Posted by Paul on 06/09/09 at 01:05 PM | #

Both of Kermit’s Powerpoints are very important. One needs to view both the first and the second (the second especially if you have seen the first).

On reflection having viewed both, the Powerpoints can be summerised as the following:

The first Powerpoint: This powerpoint establishes beyond doubt, that the bloody footprint on the mat is a perfect match for the corresponding print in the corridor. It also demostrates that whilst the matching of footprints may not be as an exact a science as matching fingerprints say, feet and their prints do indeed have distinguishing features.

The second Powerpoint: This revises the first and establishes that the prints in question, are indeed a match for Raffaele Sollecito.

I just want to give an honesty check here. Were we here to have some agenda other then simple truth, that second PP would never have been made, since the first alone makes the match appear a ‘slam dunk’, to borrow a phrase made in a recent post. The second PP to a large extent, unnravels what was done in the first PP and explains what was mistaken and why. The end result of the two PP’s together, is therefore no longer a slam dunk. Instead, it is simply ‘strong evidence’ built on a foundation of integrity. I’ll take that over a slam dunk born of flashy presentation any time and the evidence is all the more powerful for it.

Thank you Kermit for making such efforts to achieve an honest result. Meredith has just the people she deserves fighting her corner.


Posted by Michael on 06/10/09 at 05:35 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Powerpoints #13: 150 Questions For The Defendants They Have Incessantly Avoided

Or to previous entry Powerpoints #11: Countering The Spin By The Defenses On The Recent Cottage Break-in