The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint is Sollecito’s
Posted by Machiavelli (Yummi)
The sheer depth and width of the hard evidence
The defenses really don’t want you to know this: in both width and depth, the full panoply of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is absolutely overwhelming.
As we remarked in our post below there are far more and far stronger evidence points than UK and US courts normally require for conviction. But only the trial panel of judges observed anything like their full array.
The 2010 Massei Trial Report (which the Nencini Appeal court validated this past January) is a SUMMARY of what was presented to the judges in the courtroom. Those presentations in court were in turn something of a SUMMARY of the hard evidence buried in all the evidence files and the minds of witnesses.
Italian media SUMMARISED for Italians what was to be seen in the courtroom and to be read in the Massei Report. They were barely able to do even summaries for the 1/4 of all the trial hearings that were not open to the media or the public.
UK and US media for the most part didnt even bother to provide comprehensive summaries (the very fine on-the-spot reportings of Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau and Ann Wise were the main exceptions).
So in effect people in the UK and US attempting to follow the story didnt for the most part receive even a summary of a summary of a summary!
Not one US or UK newspaper or TV network translated the Micheli Report, or the vital Massei Report, or the Supreme Court appeal, or the Supreme Court outcome - only the (mostly professional) translators on PMF dot Org did all that translation.
This post is another example of how far down - beyond even Massei - it’s possible to drill into the evidence, and see it still hold up.
Some past posts on TJMK drilled down to similar depths, on the knives, on the DNA, on the mixed-blood traces, on the phone-events, on the motives and psychologies, and so on. All that evidence too all held up.
Visual analysis of the bathroom-mat footprint
This post mainly consists of high-resolution pictures and measurements. Presented like this, the pictures and measurements largely speak for themselves, and show the real strength of the bathroom-mat footprint evidence.
You will see that as SomeAlibi previously concluded using other methods, this footprint was quite undeniably Sollecito’s. It bears no similarity at all to Rudy Guede’s.
Please click on all images for larger versions in scalable PDF format
1 . [Below] the bathmat and the print, with measurement reference
2 . The bathmat print and the surrounding area
3 . The bathmat print (photo from Polizia Scientifica).
4 . The bathmat print, with vertical and horizontal sizes, from Rinaldi’s report
5. The bathmat print, photo with enhanced contrast.
6 . Enhanced contrast helps to spot some features
For example the area on the left labeled as “important area” in the picture (which was “forgotten” in the notorious photo elaborations disseminated by the ‘Friends of Amanda’ group), shows the actual left outline of the ‘big toe’ of the bathmat print.
The toe includes the area indicated in this picture (here the picture is shown again in its original colours).
7. The bathmat, with enhanced contrast
There are other stains on the carpet (about another 10, factually occupying half the entire mat area), and also there shows a second diluted footprint (apparently from a foot of smaller size).
8. The selection of a set of red colour shades, outlined by an automatic outline generator
Reference measurements indicate the width of the ‘big toe’ in millimetres.
9 . A hand drawing of the outline (detail).
The modifications are: +28% contrast, -8% luminosity, + 20% colour saturation, from the original.
An outline has been drawn manually on the photoshop image, trying to be as faithful as possible to the actual stain.
You can notice that, apart from some minor ‘disputable’ very faint areas (such as the area between the toe and the metatarsus) there are only minimal differences between an automatically generated outline and a manually drawn one.
The shapes of the ‘big toe’ are extremely similar in both contours (images 8 and 9), in fact all meaningful features are basically identical.
We consider this manually drawn outline as good for comparison.
10 . The complete hand-drawn outline
11 . Minor detail: small dots separated from the main stain
Although we can’t draw any conclusion about their possibly significance, we note the existence of these very small ‘spots’ of a faint red colour shade, separated from the big stain.
They are detected by the computer generated outline above, and that we also see as distinguishable with the naked eye thus we considered them in drawing manually the outline.
We don’t draw any conclusion about them; but because of their sensitive position (they may suggest a ‘small toe’ mark) we take note of them.
The green arrows in the picture point out their position (green circles).
12 . An image in electronically modified colours
As a part of the preliminary study of the stain, we also produced this image above where the computer assigned an artificial colour to an array of shades of ‘red’, thus allowing to further isolate the stain from the background for further assessments about its shape.
This picture shows the distribution and intensity of the colouration. (note: the existence of some above mentioned tiny marks is recorded by this technique too)
13 . The bathmat has a spiral-shaped relief decoration
We think the outline of the ‘toe’ mark of the bloody footprint is affected by the shape of the decoration, in particular the missing part of the toe on the right side, which is remarkably coincident with the margin of the decoration.
So that on that side there is a striking correspondence between the outline of the ‘negative area’ – the fabric surface around the spiral, which is lower – and the big toe’s outline
This indicates that the outline of that mark on that side was affected by the decoration margin, thus the print there has a ‘missing part’. So the ‘crooked’ bloody area in fact follows the margin of a larger toe.
Because of such coincidence, we can logically assume that the actual shape of the big toe mark appears to be part of a big toe, with larger surface which left its print only partly because part of its surface did not have contact with the fabric, in correspondence of the ‘negative area’.
14. The “negative area”
15. Mat decoration in relief and the toe mark
The remarkable coincidence between the outlines of the decoration in relief and of the toe mark is shown in the picture above.
The rough contour of the print obtained through a smooth curve highlights the shape of the big toe.
Part of the relief decoration outline coincides with the toe mark outline, which shows, highlights and explains how all parts of the red toe mark, that you can see left of the relief decoration, they all belong to one single, unitary stain.
Thus we can deduce that the “missing” area on the right of the toe is determined by the decoration, and coincides with the negative area.
16. Picture (by Kermit) showing a rough shape of the stain
This drawing by Kermit above highlights the rough shape, curvature of left margin and overall size of the big toe.
17. Rudy Guede’s sample print
A copy of this picture together with one of Sollecito’s print at the same scale will be used for comparisons.
18 . Raffaele Sollecito’s sample print
A copy of this picture together with one of Guede’s print at the same scale will be used for comparisons.
19. Part of Rudy Guede’s sample print with Rinaldi’s reference measurements
20. Part of Sollecito’s sample print, with Rinaldi’s reference measurements:
21. Bringing all photographs down to the same scale
This was based on Rinaldi’s referenced pictures. Each one of the Rinaldi’s sample pictures has multiple measurements on several points of reference which allow a high precision determination of their scale and sizes, and thus comparison at the same scale.
In order to further increase scaling precision, the scale was calculated previously and separately for each comparative measurement in the three photos; this was done multiple times for each measurement and the average was picked in order to reduce error as for statistical measurement method.
The resulting final error in the scale is extremely small, far below a threshold of significance that could affect comparison (which was set arbitrarily at 1%, but it’s probably significantly higher, while the actual error is much lower).
In other words, the scale error that may affect your screen pictures will be definitely smaller than any possible perceivable (either significant or tolerated) difference that would be noticed or that may affect the attribution of the stain, when this is compared to the sample.
22. The hand drawn outline is shown again here
23 . The outline (matched scale) overlapped on Sollecito’s sample footprint
The bathmat stain does not seem to have major incompatibilities with Sollecito’s print; it shows rather an array of compatibilities that can be perceived visually.
One interesting feature is the shape, size and position of a ‘big toe’, that appears as a remarkable coincidence; the toe also has a kind of cleft on the curvature of its left margin. Another outstanding coincidence is the curvature of the plantar arch on the left.
24 . The same outline overlapped on Guede’s footprint
If you look at the overlapping of the stain outline (see pic 22.) with the sample of Guede’s print (see pics 17. 19.), you may notice 7 major differences, showing a failure of compatibility. Those differences are indicated by numbers (1-7) in the picture .
Each one indicates an area of major difference between the outline of the bathmat stain and the outline of Guede’s sample print. Those measurement differences are remarkably larger than those that can be detected on the overlapping with Sollecito’s sampe print.
On the other hand, the compatibility between Sollecito’s print and some very peculiar aspects of the bathmat print (such as a 30mm wide and short toe) were absoluteley remarkable.
The differences between the bathmat stain and Guede’s print are are:
1) Toe mark of stain is significantly SHORTER than the big toe in Guede’s sample print (a difference of about 7 millimetres). Some people may want to attempt an objection, by suggesting that such difference may be a just a consequence of the the position chosen for the overlapping, that maybe the bathmat print was just positioned too low in the picture, the problem may be solved by shifting the outline of about 7 millimeters so to make the tip of the bathmat toe ‘coincide’ with the tip of Guede’s print toe.
However, such objection wouldn’t work; it’s a wrong argument. In fact the only only possibly correct position for overlapping the bathmat stain outline is determined by the left curvature of the ball of feet and plantar arch (the area of the picture ner number 6), which is by the way the most clearly outlined part of the bathmat stain. If you shift the bathmat stain upwards, the outline will miss the match with the curvature of the left margin of the ball of the feet. You will notice that the plantar arch in this area is already very incompatible with Guede’s plantar arch. It tends to become even more incompatible the more you shift the bathmat stain outline towards the toe.
The problem has no solution, since the more you shift the stain outline upwards (in direction of the toe) in the attempt of making it look more ‘compatible’ with the lenght of Guede’s toe (or with an upper margin) the more it will become incompatible with the plantar arch. In order to limit the incompatibility of the plantar arch, and in order to keep an overlapping of at least the left margin of the ball of the feet, you need to place it as shown in the picture, this is the position of ‘maximum’ of compatibility between the bathmat stain and Guede’s print. Conclusion: the bathmat toe is too short.
2) Toe mark of stain is TOO WIDE (30 mm). It is much wider (30 mm) than Guede’s toe. The number 2. indicates the protruding mark at the upper right, the mark which Giulia Bongiorno desperately insisted calling it a “second toe” mark. In fact, not only such mark would miss completely any hypothetical Guede’s ‘second toe’ in any possible position of the print; also you may notice (highlighted by pics 8. and 9.) how it is not a “mark” itself, but actually it just part of the same area which is entirely continuous in shape and coloration with the rest of the toe mark, and - the most remarkable feature - its right outline is coincident with the outline of the spiral-shaped relief decoration, so that you can reasonably conclude that it is determined by that (the missing area at the lower right of the ‘big toe’ is determined by the existence of the “negative area” of the bathmat decoration).
Conclusion: the bathmat stain has a wider toe mark, however one likes to call it (“big toe”, or “big toe + second toe”) that fails to match any possible part of Guede’s print. The bathmat print is clearly different and incompatible with Guede’s print. It simply cannot be overlapped to any part of Guede’s sample print. Such area is a very significant difference that points outright to incompatibility between the stain and Guede’s print.
3) The toe mark is larger also in the area located at the lower portion of the toe. The toe of the bathmat print in fact has a ‘right margin’ which actually has some additional small marks, small drops prortuding towards the right, like droplets maybe produced by the wet cotton fibres of the part in relief which protrude towards the right. This tends to suggest the toe area of the stain may be in fact just considered wider: the object that produced it was definitely wider than 22mm, in this area of the toe as well. So also a look at this area confirms that the bathmat stain is wider than 22-23 mm (more towards 30 mm) not just when measured at the upper corner (number 2.) but also at its “lower” parts; here, the small marks caused by the liquid suggest that a larger surface has squeezed liquid from some fabric threads leaving some trace also on the lower area.
4) Bigger incompatibility of Guede on the metatarsus front outline. This area is the front outline of metatarsus: the stain is almost 1cm shorter than Guede’s metatarsus. This happens when you chose the overlapping so to make the left outline and plantar arch (6.) of metatarsus coincide, as in the picture. Sollecito’s sample print also shows some difference from the stain in this area (pic. 23.) but the difference between the stain and Sollecito’s print is significantly smaller than what you can see in Guede’s print.
5) There are NO SMALL TOES in the bathmat stain. Small toes are completely absent from the bathmat stain (while the tiny blood marks around the stain don’t coincide with their expected position if it was Guede’s print). Such lack of small toes is a peculiarity of the bathmat print. This is a remarkable difference from Guede’s print, and a at the same time, a considerable analogy with Sollecito’s print. In fact one outstanding feature of Guede’s print is evidence that Guede places a big load of weight on his small toes while walking, while instead Sollecito has a posture with a weight distribution with the contrary tendence, and obviously he almost does not touch the ground with his small toes.
Thus, Guede’s small toes are all very well pressed on the ground and thus, we can reasonably infer they are somehow naturally likely to get wet if he steps on any wet surface, and anyway they should get wet for sure if the foot is immersed in water or washed (the foot that left the bathmat print must have been immersed in bloody water). The murderer supposedly washed his foot then stepped on the bathmat, in order to attribute the print to Guede we should assume that Guede “forgot” to touch the carpet with his small toes (while instead he puts a lot of weight on them) or that he managed to not rinse them.
6) The outline of the stain has a PLANTAR ARCH that COINCIDES, by curvature an angle, with the plantar arch in Sollecito’s print, while instead it is very different from the plantar arch of Guede’s print.
7) The stain is larger than Guede’s print metatarsus as visible in the right area of the stain. The difference is rather significant, almost half a centimetre, that is bigger than the difference with Sollecito’s print which instead coincides for a trait. This difference cannot be “solved” in any way since, even if one wanted to claim that the scale is wrong and that the stain should be seized down, this would make the toe, already too short (as in 1.) become even shorter.
If instead the toe length is adjusted the metatarsus becomes even less compatible with Guede. We recall that Massei found that Guede’s feet had a print overall more slender than Sollecito’s.
25 . Other features:
The plantar arch curvature, highlighted in two different drawings (the second highlights also the upper outline “hunches”); the plantar arches in the two sample prints of Sollecito and Guede are shown below. The curvatures of plantar arch are very different.
26. The outline curvature generates different angles
Sollecito’s and Guede’s plantar arch curvatures have very different angles. Also the left outline of metatarsus maintains a different curvature. Sollecito’s outline has an angle (see outline tangent) intersecting the toe (the metatarsus has a “bunion”); in Guede’s print there is basically no intersection, the outline and the toe form almost a straight line.
27 . Plantar arch curvature angle differs between Sollecito and Guede
If you consider the vertical axis of the sample footprint, and its orthogonal line, you may notice how the plantar arches curvature of the two prints they accomplish different angles: the two angles are VERY different, not just three or four degrees.
The (too) narrow angle of Sollecito’s plantar arch probably has a relation with the protruding outline and angle seen in pic 26., and seems related to a hallux valgus (which Guede does not have).
28 . The “cleft” on the left side of the stain
29 . Table of metric comparison (by SomeAlibi)
SomeAlibi’s post of a year ago
Comparison of measurements and analysis of correspondence degree of bathmat print, with both Guede’s and Sollecito’s sample prints.
No comments yet.