Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

Posted by Machiavelli

[Please click on each image for a larger and more high-resolution version]

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 didn’t 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.

The photo above was modified by highly enhancing contrast.

6 . Enhanced contrast helps to spot some features

Contrast may help to highlight especially some parts of the print outline.

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

The contrasted image is showing the presence of other stains

There are other stains on the carpet (about another 10, factually situated in one half of the 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

Shows the shape and the possible “˜outline’ of the stain

Reference measurements indicate the width of the “˜big toe’ in millimetres.


9 . A hand drawing of the outline (detail).

The photography above was modified

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

Observe the small red ‘dots’ in the picture above

Although we can’t draw any conclusion about their possible 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

Distribution and intensity of the colouration

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

The footprint’s toe obviously balancing on top of the 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

Observe above one single, unitary stain

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

Observe shape, curvature and size

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

Take note of this image

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

Take note of this image

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

An accurate exercise of scaling was done

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 array of compatibilities with Sollecito

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 (see 28 below) 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

Compare with Guede’s - matched scale.

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 sample 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 absolutely remarkable.   

The differences between the bathmat stain and Guede’s print 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 a difference may be just a consequence of 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 it up about 7 millimeters so as 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 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 near 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 the direction of the toe) in an attempt to make it look more ‘compatible’ with the length 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’ 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 on calling a “second toe” mark. In fact, not only would the mark 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 protruding 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 in fact be 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 as 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 at the same time, a considerable analogy with Sollecito’s print. In fact one outstanding feature of Guede’s print is the evidence that Guede places a big load of weight on his small toes while instead Sollecito has a posture with a weight distribution with the contrary tendency, 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 and 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 sized 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:

Curvatures of plantar arch are very different

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 arch curvatures of the two prints 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

The “cleft” on the left side

This has a correspondence with one sample print, not so with the other.

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.


This is wonderful Yummi. and even better and more informative than the last time the footprint was posted on. Shame this could not go viral. However, wonderful analysis and totally indisputable.

I don’t wonder that Bruce Fischer did his level best to dispute this site by telling all the Knox aconites not to read it. Too little Too late. The only recourse is that the Knox supporters will claim someone unknown did the cleanup and the break-in.

Someone who was wearing Sollecitos feet, or in this case foot. Lovely analysis and thank you.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/17/14 at 03:43 AM | #

Brilliant demonstration that sole print was Sollecito’s.

Sollecito and Knox have known this all along.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/17/14 at 05:19 AM | #

Thanks Yummi, and Congratulations!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/17/14 at 05:22 AM | #

Incredible amount of accurate work Yummi, thank you very much.
I’ve used this type of software for outlines, and scaling etc, and it tends to be very painstaking. A great effort, which shows, as ever, how much detail does matter.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 04/17/14 at 09:39 AM | #

This is the definitive post, here or anywhere, on the bathmat footprint.

It beggars belief that Hellmann argued this was Guede’s footprint! Massei had already rejected Professor Vinci’s submissions on the print. In this post Yummi shows why.

The only candidate for that print is Sollecito.

The print gets conveniently forgotten every time it is proclaimed that there was no forensic evidence of the pair in “the murder room”.

And then, of course, there is Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp hook and a bloody footprint of his revealed by luminol in the corridor.

The print is also inextricably linked to the evident clean up that took place which it seems highly improbable that Guede had any part in.

Roll on the Nencini Motivations.

Posted by James Raper on 04/17/14 at 12:11 PM | #

Yummi, fantastic job.

Meticulously and clearly detailed based on evidence.

Hugely appreciated.  You do Meredith proud.

Posted by thundering on 04/17/14 at 02:04 PM | #

Excellent work, Yummi!  Indisputable evidence detailed in this manner makes it impossible for Knox supporters to rationally deny her involvement!  Thank you.

Posted by MHILL4 on 04/17/14 at 02:30 PM | #

Very thorough and impressive. Thank you Yummi. What strikes me in particular is the clear match with the “cleft” on Sollecito’s footprint (28) but it’s all surely pretty damning for knife-boy.

Is there any intelligent journalist out there who wants to make a name for himself/herself and publish any of this, and so gain retrospective recognition as being astute, independent, uncorrupted, etc,  after the expected and imminent final court conviction? Come on journos, this is an easy way to stand out from seedy colleagues whose faces are bound to be covered with egg after acting for years as cheerleaders for the duplicitous defence teams.

Posted by Odysseus on 04/17/14 at 03:53 PM | #

Thanks for your masterful expose of the footprints, Yummi. Few people actually remember there is a fainter outline of a second, smaller foot on the mat which clearly cannot belong to Guede either.

I wonder though if we can get the crime scope pictures of the mat, that may give another perspective as well?

It is thanks to the efforts of people like you that we have such an enhanced knowledge of the case.

Posted by Ergon on 04/17/14 at 05:49 PM | #

As we get up to the Nencini report coming soon, it is important to keep vigilant, to bring out all the nuances and unpublished work to see what has been going on behind the scenes.

The Knox PR is floundering, and as it gets even more desperate, it is interesting to see the PR at work. The Innocence Project she has latched on to, the attacks by Bruce Fischer and co on the Kerchers. Astrologer Liz Houle wrote a piece “Cyberbullying the Amanda Knox Way” at

with Bruce Fischer and co behaving like asses and trolling for us to respond in kind. Do please check it out. As she points out, with the recent astrological configuration, “expect more to be revealed about her friends and allies”, LOL.

Posted by Ergon on 04/17/14 at 06:29 PM | #


“... it is interesting to see the PR at work”.

One thing I’ve always wondered about Gogerty Marriott PR is how “they” view (or more pertinently how David Marriott views) their client with regard to guilt or innocence. Of course when asked such a question PR people would normally put on their best “professional” manner (they haven’t ended up in PR by accident) and say they don’t have a view, they work according to the brief from the client, etc., blah blah. We know this is nonsense. If you’re alive you have a view, even if you pretend you haven’t. (That’s why in science there are double-blind experiments, otherwise the experimenter’s conscious or unconscious view inevitably affects the experimental design and the results).

So let’s assume that David Marriott, for example,  believes Knox is guilty as charged. How does he go home at night and deal with that, knowing that he’s aiding a murderer?  Does he drink too much, kick the cat, abuse his wife? It’s one thing to believe that the soap flakes brand , the politicians and the companies you’re representing are pretty tacky - you can probably still leave the office every night without feeling too bad about how you’ve spent the day. But if you think (or maybe just begin to suspect) you’re working for a murderer it’s bound to affect how you feel about yourself and your work surely?

Then again, maybe Marriott and his colleagues really do believe she isn’t “guilty as charged” That seems to be the official line on the Gogerty Marriott website at least (”..At the same time we balanced the family’s need to have the truth told about their daughter’s innocence...”).But then they would say that anyway and I struggle to believe they are as stupid as the FOA bloggers and trolls, it’s just not humanly possible.

My money is on strained marital relationships, plenty of cat and dog kicking and over consumption of alcohol when these low self-esteem jobsworth types collapse, dispirited,  at the end of the working day.

Posted by Odysseus on 04/17/14 at 07:55 PM | #

That’s a good question, Odysseus, and that’s just the PR people, they’re all Mad Men anyway 😊 What do her lawyers think? Her parents? Her sisters? One might even ask, why do people vote the way they do, against their own self interest? I am more cynical when it comes to people psychology than most.

I think in the end, people convince themselves of what they want to believe, or told to believe, and they do. There are very few mavericks and free thinkers out there.

Posted by Ergon on 04/17/14 at 09:34 PM | #

Latest from Andrea Vogt Twitter:

” Judiciary oversight board votes 16-8 to close complaint against #amandaknox judge for post appeal verdict intvu.”

Posted by True North on 04/17/14 at 10:19 PM | #

Yummi’s great post could have been subtitled “beyond a reasonable doubt” as this one key area of the evidence could all by itself have seen US and UK juries vote for guilt.

Sollecito clearly wasnt anticipating this kind of analysis. His explanations in his book are weak and dismissive of the “we demonstrated some elementary measuring errors, shrug shrug” kind before he quickly moves on.

And he puffs up “reasonable doubt” into something the entire watching population gets to vote on, not just those who sat nose-to-nose with the perps and the evidence for many many hours at trial.

James Raper, who commented favorably above, didnt like the “reasonable doubt” dodge at all, as it kind of destroys the whole point of having jury trials.

James explained in January last year with Yummi’s help how the concept is really meant to work.

Lately its been Knox herself more than anyone ranting on publicly to anyone who will listen that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and HOW COULD YOU ITALY (SWOON)?

WHAT attorney sleazily counseled Knox to keep parroting this legal lie? Ted Simon I presume?

In a statement from Amanda Knox through her attorney, she said she’s “frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict.”

“Having been found innocent before, I expected better from the Italian justice system. The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rather, nothing has changed. There has always been a marked lack of evidence. My family and I have suffered greatly from this wrongful persecution,” the statement read.

Meanwhile, Knox persistently persecutes Meredith’s family, who have suffered (at her hand) a lot more than her own.

And she was never found not guilty before; the bent Hellmann appeal was not definitive as Cassation made clear. That is a second lie in the space of a few words.

By Knox and Ted Simon. Two epitomes of sleaze.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/17/14 at 11:57 PM | #

Thank you Yummi - excellent presentation. I have a couple of ancillary questions: 1. does anyone remember the name of the Police Officer who stated that the washing machine was in recent use? 2. similarly, wasn’t there a statement about this particular bathmat being somewhat damp when the police arrived, i.e. it had just been washed in an attempt to remove the footprint evidence?

In general, does anyone other than me have the impression that the bathmat was originally rotated 180 degrees, and thus represents people stepping out of the shower? Washing the bathmat and then completely repositioning it seem to be two cover-up techniques designed to add confusion. I am always drawn back to AK’s and RS’s statements, which always strike me as lies made by putting the truth in a blender. By this I am referring to AK saying she showered with RS and that he cleaned her ears ... right after the murder?

I am also concerned about something Ergon posted in another location: the “poster” by Vinci of his presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the 66th annual meeting held in Seattle this last February 17-22.  Among the 8 pieces of evidence that Vinci quotes in support of AK/RS’s innocence is #6 - The Footprint on the Mat: “We demonstrated that the right footprint on the mat found in the home bathroom was not referable to Sollecito’s foot.  Nobody agreed with this statement.  On the contrary, the court considered this evidence as one of the most important charges against Sollecito.”

So, even though he says he was wrong, the overall impression is intended to convey his own opinion that he wasn’t wrong. That a “scientist” can promote this is a travesty. Further, nobody will notice that, being from Bari he is obligated to follow the Sollecito line (I recall here the former teacher from Bari who refused to testify against Sollecito, and all the Bari records of Sollecito’s past that had been destroyed.) 

In general, this “presentation” would be a good one to refute, in advance, point by point. Vinci notes in his conclusion: “In Italy the scientific evidence alone is often not sufficient in a criminal trial because the judge base (sic) his judgement on his free conviction. Furthermore in this case the process has had a strong media component and this has made it difficult.”

Ma che cazzo stai a di Vinci!? First, the judge’s reasoning is based on the evidence - plus extensive logic, which you seem to lack. Second, the media was overwhelmingly in favor of the accused, especially in the US, which indeed has made it very difficult - difficult for the prosecution! - not for paid shills like you.  Oh well, anything to get a free trip to Seattle and the source of your fame ...

Posted by Patrizio on 04/18/14 at 12:01 AM | #

Hi Patrizio.

Great little essay. We seem to be zeroing in on the same point: reasonable doubt. Vinci avoids getting it too.

Added: I was looking at search hits for “Knox” and “reasonable doubt” and came across a widely repeated FOA claim that every piece of evidence, separately, must pass the test of reasonable doubt

Not even Ted Simon claims that. Good time to draw attention again to this:


Patrizio, it will please you to know that Sollecito mentions Vinci’s name only twice in his book.  Once giving a talkshow host “scientific explanations”, the other at the end mentioned in a long list of his team.

I hope Ergon will come by and tell us more about Vinci and the dog and pony show in Seattle. They sure hired a lot of dubious help - they really got rolled.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/18/14 at 12:19 AM | #

Hi, Peter, Patrizio, AAFS the American Academy of Forensic Sciences had its 2014 annual meeting follow up presentation in Seattle February 17-22, 2014

Attention Meeting Presenters

“The Journal of Forensic Sciences encourages authors to submit previously unpublished reports and papers presented at the annual meeting.”

So, Professor Vinci brought his dog and pony show about the case. Sending his poster summery to Pete by e-mail, well worth looking into! 😊

Posted by Ergon on 04/18/14 at 01:01 AM | #

Rinaldi’s careful measurements with SomeAlibi’s chart comparing them, clearly place Raffaele at the murder scene.

The facts on this one chart explained by Machiavelli speak louder than all the lies.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/18/14 at 01:39 AM | #

Excellent analysis Yummi, thanks for posting.

Once again it brings to mind (for me) the bizarre claims from the fans of Knox and Sollecito that there is no evidence against the deadly duo, what with Ted “whack a mole” Simon and his favourite sound bite of “there isn’t any evidence, there never was any evidence and there never will be”

He must be awfully confused and maybe someone should explain to him what a crime-scene actually is.  If he doesn’t know that then he is lying.

Equally bizarre is the Guede hopping around everywhere wearing only his left shoe with his right barefoot so as he could make the bathroom print claim.  Again equally bizarre is the luminol prints of the deadly duo.

Here we have a horrible knife murder having taken place with the room where it happened absolutely awash with poor Merediths blood and Knox and Sollecito literally inches from it, yet after cleaned up footprints were revealed of the two they claim luminol reacts with other substances, and they want us to believe Knox and Sollecito had been sloshing around with horse radish juice around the time of the murder!

Unfortunately for me I clicked on a link this moring and it took me Knox’s spurious blog, and she is now claiming (well, stating as a matter of fact)that Merediths DNA was not found on the double DNA knife.

Literally incredible, and the sooner they are behind bars the better.

Posted by DF2K on 04/18/14 at 07:55 AM | #

ANSA reports that Raffaele took his new girlfriend to the scene of the crime in Perugia to show her what caused his terrible suffering.

What an imbecile.

He either has nobody around him to give him some common sense advice or he is not taking it.

Posted by Gonzaga on 04/19/14 at 12:16 AM | #

Incredibly thorough analysis, Yummi.  Thank you very much for this excellent post and for the painstaking work you’ve put into mapping and explaining each picture.

I also read the other posts about the upcoming trial regarding Sollecito’s book, and I have to say I’m pleased with this development.  I remember this coming up a while ago, but I wasn’t sure it would actually materialize.  Beyond the issue of defamation and unfair portrayal of public officials and judicial processes, I think this trial may be very important in terms of addressing the legality of pro-murderer PR campaigns and the issues posed by the dissemination of blatant falsehoods in order to influence public opinion.

Posted by Vivianna on 04/19/14 at 03:25 AM | #

The footprint testimony was some of the most dramatic and telling, not least in the shrill reactions of the defenses and the scared reactions which were so obvious to all of the two alleged perps.

Knox didn not speak out but Sollecito did and his “moi?!!!” sounded like Miss Piggy in the Muppets.

Here was our reposting of the reporting at the time and Kermit’s Powerpoint which showed what panic was created in the “frame Italy” crowd - they actually doctored an image of the print to make it look like Guede’s, a felony if that had been taken to court.

Plus the description in the summary of Massei.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/19/14 at 12:46 PM | #

Gonzaga, thanks for capturing ANSA story of Raf back in Perugia with new girl on his arm, retracing his Via Dolorosa.

I can’t help but think this has something to do with Holy Week and Easter tomorrow, and Raf trying to find propitiation for his sins, his lies, to ask Meredith’s forgiveness.

Maybe at the same time he’s unconsciously giving Knox a slap as he parades with new woman in their old stomping grounds.

It has been 7 long years since he was happy and carefree in Perugia. He’s probably now back in Bari for Easter with his family. How hard for Sollecito to walk Stations of the Cross, sit Easter vigil and adoration, attend mass with his confused heart. He got tempted away from Padre Pio by reckless American.

At least Resurrection Sunday heals all with new life for all. Christ by his holy cross redeemed the world. No doubt Dr. Sollecito takes comfort in that. The Kerchers also. As the Kristian Leontiou music video starring Meredith sang, “one day we will be free under the summer sun”...That time has already come for Meredith.

A worse thought: Raf reveling in triumphalism and reliving the crime, walking past dumpsters where they threw Amanda’s Asics tennis shoes whose print was on the pillow. Or dreaming up new twists on his alibi, new lies to use.

Or even rejoicing that Toto is dead, walking past his bench. Toto would still be living today probably had he not had to testify to Raf and Amanda’s frantic late night conversation at Piazza Grimana and the stress which ensued for him.

Another possibility:  Raf may simply be walking down memory lane before he gets locked up.

And it’s not Raf’s apartment in Garibaldi that is of any interest whatsoever, it is the lovely cottage where beautiful Meredith was so happy, an idyllic Eden before the snake stepped in.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/19/14 at 04:23 PM | #

This is the definitive post on the matter.

Posted by James Higham on 04/19/14 at 08:11 PM | #


‘As the Kristian Leontiou music video starring Meredith sang, “one day we will be free under the summer sun”...That time has already come for Meredith.’

Very well expressed and poignant.

Posted by Odysseus on 04/19/14 at 09:36 PM | #

I have to admit that seven years ago I would never have thought that his would be where we are now.

But for all that time it has never ceased to amaze me the stupidity of people who when faced with incontrovertible evidence still cannot except that this is true and that Knox and Sollecito are indeed guilty as charged.

I go to the Knox web sites, although of late they are not as virulent as in the past, but it’s still there, the condemnation, hate, outright lies and self denial. An example is,“She can’t be guilty because she looks innocent.” The hate that has been thrown around, not just at us which means nothing, but at the Kerchers themselves is mindbogglingly.

Over time it has become a ‘cause celebre’ for so many. Therefore would somebody please explain to me why these lunatics insist upon innocence in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I’m not talking about such pin-headed mentally deficient as the Moores plus The Curt Knox/Bruce Fischer et al who, in my opinion are sub human anyway, but the ever shrinking mindless masses who insist on being right and to hell with anything else.

I do not believe they care one whit for Knox anyway they just want to be right in order to give their shallow little lives some meaning.

So if anybody can explain to me the mob instinct of these people then I would be very thankful.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/19/14 at 11:23 PM | #

People know she did it. They want to absorb it, “be strong”, “she’s one of us”, “we’ll never let her down”.

It’s not about evidence.

Posted by Helder Licht on 04/20/14 at 10:05 AM | #

A black Audi was parked behind my car this morning as my son and I left Easter service. I said, “Raffaele Sollecito drives one like that.”

He rolled his eyes a bit and laughed at my seeming obsession. He had the dubious pleasure of foiling a purse snatching on campus this week, chased and took photos, they captured the guys. He had to identify the two thieves to police. Small world, turns out his friend going to law school in a different city knows the young lady.

Happy Easter to all.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/20/14 at 09:59 PM | #

Hi Gonzaga and Hopeful

You commented on Sollecito’s seemingly ghoulish trip to Perugia and his huddle with Bongiorno there - a trip for her from Rome and a consultation which would not have come free.

We gather the main reason for Sollecito’s trip was to spend muchos time with the lawyer Alfredo Brizioli.

Brizioli has the tough task of trying to minimize the felony charges arising from Sollecito’s book and he practices law in Perugia.

Other than that Brizioli was on the “wrong” side in the attempt to disrupt the Narducci investigations (and is fighting charges for that along with Spezi) it is hard to see why he would be the best choice in fighting the book.

Maybe he was the ONLY choice. Maybe no other lawyer in Rome or Florence would want to touch it as Sollecito (and Gumbel) said seriously stupid and indefensible things about the Italian system, prosecutors and judges.

Already maybe going down for the count himself and maybe needing all the quick fees he can get his hands on, Brizioloi may be the last lawyer lawyer in Italy happy to work for the Sollecitos.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/21/14 at 04:45 PM | #

If I recall correctly, RS described his own perfectly clear footprint as “a blob about the size of an orange.”

Posted by mimi on 04/21/14 at 09:30 PM | #

hello all.

1. i have always wondered why these 2 lunatics wondered about the house barefoot soaked in blood. wouldnt it require imense cleaning afterwards (which i think they were aware of ).

2. i am very much interested to know what exactly happened in those 2 hours prior to arrival of police.

3. the luminol picture of house shows lot of blood in corridoor.. i am sure some major blood spilling activity must have happened there.

4. also the turning or putting bath mat 180deg sounds quite possible..

may be someone can explain these points.

thanks to everyone for justice.

Posted by sikandar on 04/21/14 at 09:45 PM | #

Hi sikander
Never rule out stupidity. Also they were both high and coming down for a considerable time. Don’t forget the time line is about eight hours, ie all night to clean up. Therefore they would have had to do a lot of the cleanup in semi darkness just in case the others came back early.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/22/14 at 02:20 AM | #

Hello Mimi,
Yes, indeed he did.
The size of an orange…
They must have been on some seriously hard drugs at the time and what is left in the mother of all come downs is a fragmented and bizarre story what they are still now struggling to make people believe.

I remember the crimescene videos, I viewed them all.
The footprint of Sollecito quite comprehensively outlined in Yummis excellent analysis above is plain as the day recognisable as a footprint from the hallway - from a distance.
One doesn’t have to be on top of it to make it out as a footprint.
Of course to Knox, Sollecito and all their gullible and easily led fans and professional paid liars, it is indeed a ‘blob’ the size of an orange or someone, (ew) having not cleaned up after having menstrual issues.
Pull the other one is what springs to mind here.

Posted by DF2K on 04/22/14 at 05:55 AM | #

i agree with you grahame.

i know the cleaning activity went all night. i mentioned 2 hours prior bcos i guess activity of washing maching.. throwing the 2 mobiles and getting rid of shoes happend in early daylight.

where would an object land if thrown out from merediths window towards the slope as its jungle like and steep slope if i m not wrong.
was something found there by police ?

Posted by sikandar on 04/22/14 at 03:16 PM | #

I am surprised that nobody has commented on the Del’Utri extradition case:

Posted by Gonzaga on 04/23/14 at 01:57 AM | #

Hi Gonzaga

We’d wondered. Extradition cases make some sort of news daily. Many are interesting and we could fill up the site with them, but we have tried to mention only those that seem most relevant.

In this case the ANSA report suggests he might have picked his destination wisely! Beiruit houses many rich fugitives. Some nefarious Europeans have scarpered to the US, only to be sent back based on the terms of the extradition treaties, with little US interest in the guts of their case.

His case has been a cat & mouse one for many years. Cases of “collusion with the mafia” are always difficult due to short life expectancies of the witnesses.

It’s reported in Italy that when he arrived in Beiruit his first words were “I’m in Lebnanon? What a surprise. I must have got on the wrong plane.” Then he claimed he was on a mission for the CIA.

The Alitaliia check-in woman who gave him the boarding pass is being given a hard time though she and some others seem to have been tricked to clear his path to the plane.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/23/14 at 11:07 AM | #

Hi, sikandar,

This case is a fascinating mix of what we do know for a fact and what we can only guess at, hopefully through educated guesses. It should also be pointed out that Massei made note of certain evidences but arrived at the same conclusion as Micheli, albeit via a different route as to motivation.

Lack of an exact TOD makes it harder, but I’ll try to answer, mistakes and opinion mine.

Nara Capezzalli, Maria Dramis, and Antonella Monacchia all heard a scream, the first two overlooking the parking garage heard running footsteps as well, Monacchia on the street behind Via de Melo, (but with a view of the cottage) heard a man and a woman arguing, then a scream, time guessed at as somewhere after 10:00 PM.

Meredith’s phones were pinged at the cottage just after 10:00 PM and closer to Elisabetta Lana’s country home after midnight, so the phones were disposed of earlier.

I don’t know how thorough the search was of the area surrounding the house, most of it was concentrated near by and I doubt it went too far down the very steep overgrown valley. Of course, the perps wouldn’t be running down there in the dark either. Meredith’s keys and credit cards were never found.

They fled, and Knox and Sollecito came back later that night (after the tow truck left)

The blood in the hallway was from naked foot/shoeprints.

The bathmat very likely was rotated. You’d be surprised at how much can be missed when one is exhausted/coming down from a drug high.

Posted by Ergon on 04/23/14 at 01:35 PM | #

thanks ergon for ur insight.

Posted by sikandar on 04/23/14 at 10:03 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 Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure

Or to previous entry Sollecito Takes On A New Lawyer To Help Him Work His Way Past The Minefield That Is His Book