Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is what the Chicago Tribune wrote about Louise Robbins:
By the time Robbins died in 1987, appeals courts had overturned many of the cases in which she had testified. And the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, in a rare rebuke of one of its members, concluded her courtroom work was not grounded in science
Yes there is alot more on this
First off Rinaldi used the grid of Robbins in which I do believe every case she ever worked on has been reviewed and her testimony tossed. She was also sanctioned
Rinaldi measured the big toe and 2nd toe together on the bathmat and came up with a measurement of 30mm when in fact the correct measurement of the big toe is 24.8. RS is totally incapable of stepping on his 2nd toe.
Torre also pointed out that the luminol footprints that investigators say are of Knox's bare feet cannot be because Knox's second toe is longer than her big toe, and that characteristic is not apparent in the lumino-enhanced prints. He also pointed out that the bare footprints of the other two women who lived in the house were not taken for comparison, nor were those of the victim
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=8014386&page=2
This photo shows that there is plenty of room for three people to attack one person in this bedroom.
No one has ever claimed otherwise, otto.
The argument is that three people couldn't kill one person in that small space without all three leaving traces of themselves, predominantly in blood.
Nova, I'm looking at this supposed "expert" opinion of Hendry, and I don't understand his conclusions regarding blood spatter direction. His arrows seem to have nothing to do with the size, shape and apparent direction of the blood drops. I'm looking at the large pool of blood, and wondering why he expected all three murderers to go to the corner of the room and stand in the blood (with their shoes on) as Meredith bled to death. I'm reading his opinion, and wondering why he doesn't address the two knives that he thinks Rudy alone used. I'm wondering why he ignores the 40 injuries in his reconstruction. He doesn't seem to know what to do with the print on the bath mat, so he adds another random thought claiming that Rudy removed a shoe to wash blood from the shoe ... but somehow the bare foot also had blood on it. I don't see anything logical in Hendry's opinion. It is obvious that he ignores many factual points in order to argue that Rudy acted alone. He claims to be an expert on broken windows, but doesn't even begin to address the details of where the glass was found.
I can only speculate, but Hendry may not address the broken windows because we don't seem to have many photos of the resulting disarray and broken glass. Perhaps they exist, but I haven't seen them, nor have I heard people refer to much in the way of photographic evidence.
I don't know that Hendry "ignores" the 40 injuries in his reconstruction so much as he assumes they resulted from what he describes as a life-and-death struggle between MK and her (lone) assailant.
I don't know that Hendry has every detail right, but one thing that gives his account credibility (to me, at least) is that he portrays MK's final minutes as a very violent affair. By contrast, the prosecution wants me to believe there were four people and two knifes in that room and MK was wounded 40 times, yet the whole event was as stately as a gavotte!
ETA: is there a handy list of MK's injuries available on line? Obviously it makes a difference whether most were knife cuts or most were bruises.
Thanks to another poster who PM'd me a mainstream discussion of MK's injuries, but prefers not to post it here out of respect for the victim.
The article in question is not a blog or a tabloid, and is neither pro-prosecution nor pro-defense.
It seems that that vast majority of injuries MJ suffered consist of bruises, cuts and abrasions one would expect to find after a violent struggle. Since Hendry details just such a struggle, he may feel he has accounted for those injuries.
Instead, Hendry deals with the fatal stab wounds and shows how those wounds are consistent with a lone assailant cutting MK from behind.
What do you make of the fact that stab wounds appear to be from the left, then the right? Was Rudy ambidextrous with knives?
The various injuries (cuts, bruises, stabbing, minor defensive injuries) are discussed throughout the sentencing summary (the 427 pg report). There's a long description in the report detailing why more than one person was involved ... relates to the fact that there were very small cuts to Meredith's hands (not what you would expect from someone trying to prevent themselves from being stabbed to death), and repeated cuts around the neck suggesting that Meredith was cut, and then did absolutely nothing to prevent being cut again in the same area. If one person attacked her, she appears to have done very little to protect herself, which was completely out of character for her.
I know its hard and not really fair for me to be discussing a source I'm not at liberty to post. But the expert quoted there (Italian) thought the evidence showed that MK was held on one side while the stabbing was done with the opposite hand.
The thing is, otto, from very early on in the case, ILE starts with Mignini's theory and then picks and chooses the evidence that will support that theory.
Since the theory is patent nonsense, I don't have any respect for the conclusions invented to support it.
Sorry, but that's how I see this case.
This, for example, is based on an original photo but attempts to communicate the same idea without the gory photos. Could something like this substitute for referencing images from the linked information? http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php