The footprints/shoeprints on the balcony

[steff13]

Thank you for all that hard work cynic! They can't even read a tape measure properly, how the hell are we supposed to trust the rest of their findings? Blind faith? I would like for you to find me a woman with a 9" waist. Even the ones into corsets are only about 13 inch waists!

Oh, come on, give them a break - they said "approximately" 11 inches. They can't be expected to accurately count all those inches!

:crazy:

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you for all that hard work cynic! They can't even read a tape measure properly, how the hell are we supposed to trust the rest of their findings? Blind faith? I would like for you to find me a woman with a 9" waist. Even the ones into corsets are only about 13 inch waists!

Well, to give them some credit, the 9 inches would be just the front part--you'd have to double it and then add a few inches for thickness (this is not a paper doll we're talking about) to get the actual waist measurement.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Well, to give them some credit, the 9 inches would be just the front part--you'd have to double it and then add a few inches for thickness (this is not a paper doll we're talking about) to get the actual waist measurement.

I'm not sure I understand AZ, what you are trying to tell me. Double the 9"? Supposedly she went over straight on, the foot prints are straight to the railing, and Val at Hinky Meter proved she couldn't have leaned over to go over sideways, so I don't understand what you mean.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not sure I understand AZ, what you are trying to tell me. Double the 9"? Supposedly she went over straight on, the foot prints are straight to the railing, and Val at Hinky Meter proved she couldn't have leaned over to go over sideways, so I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that, if the front of a woman's body leaves an impression 9 inches across, that doesn't mean her waist measurement is 9 inches. Her waist measurement would be the circumference around her waist, which would be at least the 9 inches in front, 9 inches in back, and a few inches on the sides.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Thank you AZ. I understand your point. If she were 9" in the front, her waist circumference would be approximately 22"...correct? 9" + 9" + 2" + 2" =22. So if the measurement were 11" since they misread the tape measure, her waist might be more like 26 - 28"? I agree.

 

[jjenny]

Thank you AZ. I understand your point. If she were 9" in the front, her waist circumference would be approximately 22"...correct? 9" + 9" + 2" + 2" =22. So if the measurement were 11" since they misread the tape measure, her waist might be more like 26 - 28"? I agree.

Even that assumes that she managed to go over the railing with feet bound and hands bound behind back, and the only area that touched the railing was her waist. Not an easy task as far as I can tell.

 

[Wendy101]

Why would LE purposefully make a "mistake" like this? Did they not know it was high profile? It IS a MILLIONAIRE's GF that as found hanging naked after his son's life threatening fall...
I just can't wrap my head aound that...WHY?

 

[deanna82437]

Yes, it's Radar Online, but another footprint has been discovered.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/09/rebecca-zahau-death-shoe-print-found-bedroom

 

[time]

Even that assumes that she managed to go over the railing with feet bound and hands bound behind back, and the only area that touched the railing was her waist. Not an easy task as far as I can tell.

I'd don't think this is possible. It may also mean her waist would have to extend several inches (think a cross section looking toward her where her waist is 22 inches around for 2-5 inches up and down her torso ... at the least the thickness of the top of the railing and any marks on the front and back edges of the railing that was disturbed. A body is 3 dimensional as is the railing.

 

[cynic]

There are only 3 areas on the railing that are truly wiped clean as evidenced by a shiny black surface in each instance.

An approximately 3” area – from 18.25 to 21.25 inches on the “ruler.”
An approximately 1.25” area - from 27 to 28.25 inches on the “ruler.”
An approximately 1/2” area – from 32 to 32.5 inches on the “ruler.”

There is no area on the railing sufficiently wiped clean that would correspond with RN leaning over, and subsequently falling over, as law enforcement would have us believe.

I believe the 3” area might be explained by someone placing their hand on the railing.
Hand breadth:
In males, the right hand breadth varied from 7.30cm (2.87in) to 9.40cm (3.70in) (mean 8.45cm (3.33in) & SD 0.40)

and left hand breadth varied from 7.20cm (2.83in) to 9.40cm (3.70in) (mean 8.42cm (3.31in) & SD 0.40).


In females, the right hand breadth varied from 6.70cm (2.64in) to 8.80cm (3.46in) (mean 7.48cm (2.94in) & SD 0.38)

and left hand breadth varied from 6.60cm (2.60in) to 8.70cm (3.43in) (mean 7.42cm (2.92in) & SD 0.37).
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijfs/vol1n2/hand.xml

The other two areas relate to the rope, as red fiber evidence is apparent on the outside edge of the railing.

 

[SunnieRN]

Cynic, thank you as I could not for the life of me find that picture again!!! And congratulations and thank you for agreeing to be a mod on the forum!!!:great::woohoo:

 

[jjenny]

Then how did RN go over it? Her feet and hands were bound, she couldn't have jumped over it.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Cynic, would you agree that the 1/2" mark was from the rope and there was significant tension on that rope?

 

[cynic]

Cynic, would you agree that the 1/2" mark was from the rope and there was significant tension on that rope?

There’s not much doubt in my mind on both counts.

 

[jjenny]

There’s not much doubt in my mind on both counts, no.

If those marks are from rope and the hand, how did her body get over the railing? She couldn't have used her hand because the hands were bound behind back. She couldn't have jumped over because feet were bound.

 

[cynic]

Then how did RN go over it? Her feet and hands were bound, she couldn't have jumped over it.

Yes, how?
The railing was 36” high and RN was athletic, however, if she did hop to within 6” of the railing as evidenced by the toe print she would not have been able to clear the railing without any contact, IMO. All that would have accomplished would have been to allow her center of gravity to clear the railing and allowed her to fall. It still would not explain why there would not be a significant area wiped clean on the railing. I would also expect both toe prints and heel impressions to be visible if she tried to jump.

 

[cynic]

If those marks are from rope and the hand, how did her body get over the railing? She couldn't have used her hand because the hands were bound behind back. She couldn't have jumped over because feet were bound.

It was an open ended observation. I only wished to point out that the width is consistent with the width of a human hand.
There is footprint evidence that suggests that someone else may have been on the balcony, I would tend to believe it was that individual that left the palmprint, (if it is a palmprint.}

 

[Wendy101]

Maybe the one palmpalm print came from the one foot officer

 

[time]

Yes, how?
The railing was 36” high and RN was athletic, however, if she did hop to within 6” of the railing as evidenced by the toe print she would not have been able to clear the railing without any contact, IMO. All that would have accomplished would have been to allow her center of gravity to clear the railing and allowed her to fall. It still would not explain why there would not be a significant area wiped clean on the railing. I would also expect both toe prints and heel impressions to be visible if she tried to jump.

Thank you so much for your most excellent work on this! But, EEK! What is up with the SD Sheriff's office claiming that 11 "!

 

[jjenny]

Maybe the one palmpalm print came from the one foot officer

:floorlaugh: