719 users online (80 members and 639 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 66 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 985
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/Internation...ory?id=8613900

    ...Vinci concluded the bloody footprint should be attributed to Guede because of the shape and angle of the big toe and the width of the ball of the foot.

    "I am not saying that this print certainly belongs to Guede," said Vinci, "but it is attributable to Guede, it is compatible."

    The prosecution found just the opposite in May. Police print expert Lorenzo Rinaldi found that Sollecito's big toe was much wider than that of either Knox or Guede, as was the ball of his foot and the arch. Rinaldi said at the time that "it can absolutely be concluded that the print is compatible with that of Sollecito and not compatible with that of Guede. It gives us a probable identity of Raffaele Sollecito."

    As part of his presentation, Vinci did an overlay of Guede's print on the print found on the rug, showing how it matched, but he did not do the same with Sollecito's print, as the prosecutor later pointed out. Vinci said he did not feel it necessary to make that comparison....

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    If you look at this video you'll see it's not Raffaele's print.

    http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/q...sollecito.html
    I don't speak Italian so I didn't see that it proved it wasn't his footprint.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952

    Arrow Just bringing this forward

    Just bringing this material forward for reference:

    Quote Originally Posted by SMK
    @OTTO:
    (I may have had the wording wrong)
    Yes, I think it was in Galati's appeal , and also as Chris says it appears in
    The English summary of the Supreme Court of Cassation Motivation- 2013, Analysis of the Footprints and Other Traces; pg 70 of the original: Hellmann is in error in saying the bare footprints of Sollecito and Knox could have been from a prior time.
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK
    Here is the Galati section (from pdf)


    Analysis of prints and other traces


    About the luminol foot prints, it is implausible to assume that those prints were left on some other occasion, since – in the Court’s view - luminol basically indicates blood (and in no other circumstance could someone produce such a set of prints in blood). The Cassazione notes that the Massei scenario to explain the footprints was far more plausible, and Hellmann-Zanetti bring no reason to refute it.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by geevee View Post
    Here's a pic of the room/bed, I really fail to see any staging or clean up:

    http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery...&image_id=4765
    Body - Shoulder with bra strap imprint in blood by the closet. Moved some time after death from closet to middle of room. Staged.

    Bra - Droplets on the cups show she was wearing it when she was still breathing. Cut off some time after death and placed by feet. Despite bloody hand print on pillow, no blood print on bra. Staged.

    Pillow - Placed under body but bloody shoe prints and bloody hand print reveal this was done after the stabbings. Not a single blood print on shirt, pants, underwear, body. No bloody shoe prints around the pillow. Impossible. Staged.

    Duvet - Placed some time after death. Smaller blood spots were already dried on the body. Corner intentionally pulled up over the foot. Staged.

    Locked door - Blood on inside handle but not on outside handle. Guede's bloody shoe prints not turning around or shuffling. He did not close the door. Staged.

    JMO

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    If you look at this video you'll see it's not Raffaele's print.

    http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/q...sollecito.html
    It is not a matter of 'looking'. It is a matter of measuring.
    http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...hmat_Footprint

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    600

    inequivalent situations

    Amber29 wrote, “The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument.” (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)

    I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rock’s being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomena’s room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.

    I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.

    On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Meredith’s room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith’s room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.

    The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomena’s room. To extend this idea, let’s reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    Body - Shoulder with bra strap imprint in blood by the closet. Moved some time after death from closet to middle of room. Staged.

    Bra - Droplets on the cups show she was wearing it when she was still breathing. Cut off some time after death and placed by feet. Despite bloody hand print on pillow, no blood print on bra. Staged.

    Pillow - Placed under body but bloody shoe prints and bloody hand print reveal this was done after the stabbings. Not a single blood print on shirt, pants, underwear, body. No bloody shoe prints around the pillow. Impossible. Staged.

    Duvet - Placed some time after death. Smaller blood spots were already dried on the body. Corner intentionally pulled up over the foot. Staged.

    Locked door - Blood on inside handle but not on outside handle. Guede's bloody shoe prints not turning around or shuffling. He did not close the door. Staged.

    JMO
    Yes, this is a comprehensive list. I don't understand why the pillow placed beneath her was part of the staging, though. It seems to run counter to an assault. I've never understood that part of the staging.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    IIRC, the imprint showed that the person who left it had a hammer toe. RS has a hammer toe.
    But if you look at the foot chart, the big toe does not match in size to either man.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    I did, the big toe matches neither man. I don't think they could get an accurate measurement from a soft bath mat anyways, maybe the tile floor, but not on fabric that's made to wick moisture away.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
    Amber29 wrote, “The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument.” (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)

    I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rock’s being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomena’s room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.

    I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.

    On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Meredith’s room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith’s room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.

    The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomena’s room. To extend this idea, let’s reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.
    As far as the broken window goes I remembered something. IIRC, AK and RS's defense put an expert on the stand that showed a rock could be thrown from the balcony to break Filomena's window. However, on cross examination they were shown how the window was on the night of the murder. There was a shutter pulled out that would have blocked a rock from hitting the window. The expert then had to admit it would have been impossible.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by geevee View Post
    I did, the big toe matches neither man. I don't think they could get an accurate measurement from a soft bath mat anyways, maybe the tile floor, but not on fabric that's made to wick moisture away.
    When you look at the chart look at the percentage of probability that it was either man's foot.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    I was just going to take note that as Maresca did not get a chance to speak on Tues, he must be pushed into Dec 16-17, which will likely push the defense into Jan and the rebuttals and deliberation a bit further. Ah, well. Maybe they will catch up.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    600

    open shutter, remove objection

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    As far as the broken window goes I remembered something. IIRC, AK and RS's defense put an expert on the stand that showed a rock could be thrown from the balcony to break Filomena's window. However, on cross examination they were shown how the window was on the night of the murder. There was a shutter pulled out that would have blocked a rock from hitting the window. The expert then had to admit it would have been impossible.
    The prosecutor's argument was meretricious. We can all agree that if the outer shutters were closed, the rock could not break the window. There are one or two ways, however, that the shutters might have come open (IIUC they did not close tightly, owing to swelled wood). One is that they were not closed in the first place (Filomena's initial testimony was uncertain on this point). Two is that Guede climbed up once to open them, then threw the rock. Three is that he used a stick to open them while standing below. EDT: Four is that they were closed but came open due to wind.

    One problem with objecting to Pasquali's demonstration is that (by itself) it does not answer the question of how the window was broken. This comes back to the problem I discussed in the previous thread: the lack of a comprehensive narrative/timeline of the crime. Massei's conjecture with respect to how the window was broken was never tested, but there is no way that the distribution of glass would be the same as it is if the window were broken as Pasquali indicated.
    Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 11-27-2013 at 02:43 PM.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    How does the defense account for bleach, used to clean a shower, still staining feet after at least two showers were taken at the cottage. It's likely that Knox and Meredith also showered before going out for Halloween, so if the shower was cleaned on October 31, at least four showers were taken between then and November 2, when Knox could have stained her feet with cleaning residue that was revealed with luminol. It sounds very unlikely ... that bleach cleaning residue was staining feet after four showers had been taken, all of which would have included non-bleach cleaning products.

    Why wasn't there the same evidence of Meredith tracking bleach residue when she showered at noon on November 1?
    Not sure, but I also do not know when the shower was last cleaned. It is also the case that it would be just traces of cleaning products, that could leave that residue, as can water that has rust in it. I am not sure what the water quality is there.

    MK strikes me as more tidy than AK, I do not see her wondering around the place barefoot. She might have worn flip flops so she did not track it

    I also do not know how long such residue last after cleaning,

    I never thought there was a Knox boot print anywhere, and especially not in the murder room

    One cannot merely go by just 4 pieces of DNA either. Some DNA is more probative than others, like the DNA in the body. Also 4 pieces of DNA could be oodles of DNA stuff, like the DNA in the body, that could have been a lot as opposed to DNA on the purse which might have been a speck. The mixed DNA of RG and MK in the murder room leaves no doubt he was involved in the murder.

    This is not a who done it. It is whether you believe a 20 year old girl with no known history of psychological problems or law problems nor any evidence she had this horrible temper(no fights in school, etc) would suddenly decide one night to kill her roommate over who did or did not flush the toilet. Sorry, but IMO, you would need to place her in that murder room and there is no evidence of her involvement in the murder.

    The footsteps do not make sense because even if blood, why is not in MK's DNA? If RG tracked visible prints, RS and AK should have too. So what, did they cleaned up? Well, either they cleaned up then they used bleach and that is why the luminol light up killing MK DNA. However,the tests were negative for blood. I also think if they were using bleach, they probably would have needed to have footorints in the murder room and so there would be luminol in there too. but there is not. how could they not bloody prints in the murder room yet there be no evidence of bleach there (no luminol lights)

    The other scenario is that they are blood, but why doesn't it match Mk DNA? Or the third scenario is that it is cleaning products or rust from water acquired in the shower with AK running around barefoot

    Remember defense need not prove any of these scenarios. But with prosecutors not even tying AK to the murder room the prosecution need to prove that those prints were MK's blood, done with AK's feet or that it was AK who cleaned those prints. Without testing positive for blood or MK DNA, it raises the possibility of the reasonableness of the defense scenario.
    Last edited by Yellow; 11-27-2013 at 02:03 PM.

Page 2 of 66 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread