Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 1 - Preamble: overview on Rinaldi-Boemia reports and attachment files:



Three expert reports concerning footprints and shoeprints were produced overall during the investigation: the Ippolito-Mainieri, and the two Rinaldi-Boemia reports.
The “first Rinaldi-Boemia report” was commissioned on January 9. 2008, and was released to the prosecution office on April 9. 2008. Was introduced I the trial in May.

I made a mistake in recent posts, as I affirmed that this was about the bathmat print. In fact this first Rinaldi report was dealing mainly with bloody shoeprints. It was actually the second report dealing with the bloody shoeprint, after the first opinion given in the Ippolito-Mainieri report. The Ippolito.Mainieri was an “instant” report, an opinion released in real time on Nov 7. 2007 by two inspectors at the police station of Città di Castello, as we know this contained the opinion the bloody shoeprint “compatible” with Sollecito’s Nike shoe. The prosecution was not convinced by this assessment and two month later asked the forensic lab for a more detailed analysis:

“ L'incarico di consulenza veniva affidato al dr. Rinaldi e all'ispettore capo Boemia dal P.m. procedente in data 9.1.08. A quel tempo la Procura già disponeva di una consulenza (Ippolito-Mainieri datata 7.11.07) la quale era pervenuta ad un giudizio di attribuzione all'imputato Sollecito di una determinata impronta di scarpa, lasciata per deposizione di sostanza ematica”
(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 355)


The first Rinaldi-Boemia report overturned the Ippolito assessment and attributed the floor bloody shoeprint to Rudy Guede:

“Dando immediatamente conto dei risultati della indagine, la relazione Rìnaldì¬Boemia ha capovolto il punto d'arrivo della precedente consulenza Ippolito. Laddove nell'immediato avvio delle indagini la suola di scarpa del reperto 5 A era stata attribuita alle calzature di Sollecito (segnatarnente alla scarpa sinistra delle Nike modello" Air Force 1" mis. 9 utilizzate dall'imputato), la nuova consulenza ha concluso per la corrispondenza della impronta 5 A con il modello di scarpa "NlKE OUTBREAK 2" mis. 11 che è stato certamente in uso a Rudi Guede “

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 357)


I made the above citations to clear doubts, that might be alleged by somebody, that the experts and laboratories involved are not the same who attributed the bloody shoeprint to Sollecito.
It is clear also from the documents that the prosecution was not satisfied by having just the first “instant” study by the flying squad in a provincial police station, and the attribution to Guede’s shoe was a result already contained in the study that had been ordered by the prosecution on January 9. 2007. Moreover, the previous attribution by Ippolito-Mainieri appeared wrong immediately to Rinaldi and Boemia in January, as they were appointed to the case:

“ … dalle prime rilevazioni era parso a Rinaldi e Boemia che la impronta della calzatura del Sollecito avesse dimensioni inferiori rispetto all'impronta lasciata sul pavimento, atteso che il diametro del cerchio era pari a mm 33 in luogo dei 36 mm del reperto 5/ A. Si era pertanto ipotizzato che la traccia non potesse essere stata lasciata dalle calzature Nike dello studente pugliese. Le indagini si erano allora orientate a utilizzare gli esiti degli accertamenti nel frattempo eseguiti presso l'abitazione del Guede, dove in Via del Canterino, in sede di sopralluogo erano state reperite sia la scatola vuota del modello di
scarpe "NlKE OUTBREAK 2" misura 11 “

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 357)


*

The second Rinaldi-Boemia expert report deals with the Luminol prints, with a new set of shoeprints (altogether, by all reports we know that about thirty(!) shoeprints were found in the apartment) and with the bathmat print. This second report was commissioned on May 12. 2008, and issued by the prosecution on May 31. 08.

This report is constituted of more than one file. The number of files is precisely one of the issues in this debate. In fact the number of files is not clear in the Massei report, reading Masseis’ references it looks like the files could be three: the court cites the existence of an attachment dedicated to the bathmat, which is no title of the pdf we have, the court and refers to some picture numbers not corresponding to the “photographic attachment” we have:

“Varie impronte sul tappetino risultano impresse per deposizione di sostanza ematica, dove nel rilievo sono visibili diverse tracce di sangue (cfr. tav. 7 dell' allegato relativo al JI tappetino")”.

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 362)

The sentencing report has indications of pictures “tab. 7” and “tab 8” that are not the photos 7 and 8 we have in the photographic attachment. And the above quote cites one “allegato relativo al JI tappetino”. The Massei report then also mentions a picture showing the “Robbins Grid” in tabs “16” and “17”, while pictures 16 and 17 in the photographic attachment do not show any grid. Moreover Massei’s report reports of a further in-depth metric analysis that was made in a second moment, after the first measurements and first findings of a compatibility with Sollecito:


“Premesso che già l'analisi della dimensione dell' alluce del Sollecito aveva portato i tecnici a concludere per la compatibilità tra l’impronta A del tappetino e il piede destro dell'imputato, ecco che il dr. Rinaldi e l'ispettore capo Boemia hanno eseguito un approfondimento metrico in relazione alle misure, con il risultato di vedere aumentata la loro sicurezza in ordine a tale tipo di identificazione.
Il metodo seguito è stato quello di sovrapporre a ciascuna impronta una griglia
centimetrata, la cd. "Griglia di L.M. Robbins" (tav. 16-17 all. cit.), griglia orientata in modo che l'asse verticale coincide con il profilo destro del piede mentre l'asse orizzontale è allineato all'altezza dell'apice dell'alluce (tav.16). L'operazione è in questo caso eseguita con riferimento all'impronta plantare del piede destro del Sollecito; la griglia centimetrata viene infine adoperata per misurare le impronte plantari anche di Amanda Knox e di Rudi Guede e per misurare, infine, l'impronta del tappetino costituente il termine di confronto)”.

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 363)

Here again it appears the judges are speaking of an attachment which is not one of the two known files posted by Charlie Wilkes. But the existence of some further information, some further part of the report, it appears necessary in the next pages, as the court cites a number of measurements not contained in the files of the second Rinaldi report: 10 different measurements in millimetres are reported in relation to Guede’s footprint giving mentions of point numbers on a grid, not existing in any picture we have, mentions seven measurements belonging to Sollecito’s foot and further 10 measurements from the bathmat print. All those are not contained in the files we have, neither in pictures nor in the text.
My conclusion is there must be a file dedicated to the bathmat print, containing photographic material, which is not on the internet but was entered in the trial with the Rinaldi-Boemia report.


*

The last point of this preamble is short note on an error that was remarked by Charlie Wilkens and published on the Friend of Amanda site.
In one of the slides from Rinaldi’s files a wrong value is reported (66,7 instead of 57 or 55) in a picture showing Guede’s footprint.
I consider possible that this figure of 66,7 was mistakenly picked up because it was a value in the original set of measurements, in a file which possibly contained a bigger number of measurements in segments on a grid. This would mean it could be, for example, the value of segment E-F that was mistakenly written down instead of the length of segment A-B.
However, I think it is important to read the Rinaldi report and not just look at the pictures.
By reading the series of assessments by Rinaldi, we can see how this wrong value doesn’t affect any of his conclusions.
Nothing changes in Rinaldi’s conclusion if the mistake is “corrected”. In fact this difference in datum is never used in the report to draw any different conclusion, Rinaldi doesn’t rule out compatibility with Rudy on the measurement based on that datum. A mistake would be relevant only if is affecting a point that rules out compatibility of that measurement. But Rinaldi himself calls the measurement “compatible”, which implies if had been already considered in its correct value of about 55 mm. A correction ex post of a typographic error that probably originated in a draft copy, but unrelated to any conclusion, obviously can’t change Rinaldi’s finding.
Somebody suggested to use this error to discredit Rinaldi as an expert:

“However, if it turns out to be 55mm, then Rinaldi looks like an idiot and how much of what he has said can you believe. Since his measurements are wrong and he used the grid of Louise Robbins who was discredited.”

It is worth notice that, while the first Rinaldi-Boemia report was issued after four months of research, the second Rinaldi-Boemia report was issued after only 20 days and deals with about 30 footprints/shoeprints. About the L. Robbins grid seen as reason for discredit, it must be know, and taken in account in the assessment, that the L.Robbins grid was used also in the defensive report drawn bt prof. Vinci.

“La consulenza del Prof. Vinci quando poi passa ad effettuare le misurazioni ponendo a confronto i due termini in verifica (tappetino, orma del Sollecito) fa anch'essa applicazione della griglia di "Robbìns" con risultati però di non conciliabilità tra i termini a confronto.”
(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 363)

In fact Louise Robbins theories were discredited, but the use of a “Robbins grid” appears to not be the equivalent. Moreover, the Rinaldi study and the Vinci study use the same basic literature sources, among the main sources in Vinci’s reference list, there is a text co-authored by Rinaldi. While the mistake of reporting 66,7 mm in the text is not emendable – albeit not significant – if we look for reasons for discredit we can do more when we confront Rinaldi’s mistake with the Vinci’s theory of a “second toe mark” incorporated in the toe mark: we could issue a challenge, a search for whoever finds a reference for this occurrence in footprint literature.


ORIGINAL POST LOCATION


See following post for part 2.

Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 2 - Photographic overview of the bathmat. The shape of the bathmat footprint:



The bathmat print shows important features of the toe, which became an issue of discussion. I want show in pictures what the shape of the print looks like for everybody to see what the issues are referred to.

This picture of the bathmat print shows an important area of the left side of the toe:



This is the digitalized image of the bathmat print with an enhanced contrast:



This picture is marked with lines drawn to show the roundish shape of the toe outline. Small spots of blood on the right are also marked. Some small dubious reddish areas are also indicated on the upper right.



Thanks to the data stored in digital photos we can highlight many features not immediately visible to the naked eye. Simply by variation of luminosity and contrast we can see immediately outstanding what the outline of the stain looks like. It is quite different from the shape suggested on the Friend of Amanda’s site. An important aspect is the area left of the toe, and the round shape of the upper part of the toe, showing the blood mark as incorporated and continuous to the toe mark:



With enhanced contrast we can show where the outline of the stain actually is, and how the footprint has a clear shape. A more contrasted picture:




The following , slightly contrasted, shows the central part of the bathmat. Notice that a) at leas one stain can be identified as a second foot print, in a different dilution of substance, definitely a more diluted blood solution b) Other marks are visible, apparently they could be even more diluted.
The bathmat has been observed under black light, but could be interesting to test it with Luminol to see if contours are visible of more latent prints. It must be understood that the mat had been rinsed by the murderer(s), and the stains are residual. But could be that we found more prints that look the same of the Luminol prints in the hallway? And c) there are further series of stains, two series of three faint prints in two areas, that may vaguely resemble fingers.
Lastly d) what we can notice as remarkable feature, is that the central print it appears to be of a smaller foot compared to the “A” print. If we interpret correctly the print in line with its proportions and size, we conclude the central print is from smaller foot.




ORIGINAL POST LOCATION


See next post for Part 3

Yummi research on the bathmat print

part 3 – The outline of the print: a confrontation in pictures with the UACV prints of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.



This is the bathmat print





The first step is to draw an outline of the stain.





The method for comparison consists in overlapping the outline to the police prints of Guede and Sollecito.
The two UACV footprints, and the bathmat photos, are at the same scale.

Warning: given the method used to calculate the scale of the pictures, I cannot calculate in advance the precision of the result, and I must consider that an error is anyway intrinsic, which is difficult to estimate precisely. But my final assessment is that the error is anyway not significant in the context of the precision required given the features of the stains.
The method to calculate the scale of picture is manual measurement with a ruler on a high resolution screen. The samples used the are the segments that are known to be of a definite length in the original, albeit the original picture don’t contain an official metric reference (as a ruler). The direct metric equivalence was made on the horizontal segments in the pictures of the Rinaldi’s report. I have confidence the error is not able to affect the result given the tolerance expected because of the shape of the stain. However, we can consider that, first, an error in scale is intrinsic to the original pictures in Rinaldi’s report, both on the sample body prints and on the bathmat print. Also a difference between vertical and horizontal pixel length can affect the picture, depending on the screen.
Finally, the outlines are drawn manually. A careful observation will reveal that the outlines in pictures have minimal differences: this is because I drew them many times, trying to follow progressively a more precise shape over the pre-existing outlines. Some uncertain areas are indicated. It is possible to realize the differences between the outlines are minimal and their difference is only theoretical, the consequence of their complexity and their being produced manually, they can be considered identical on any practical purpose.
Both the prints of Guede and Sollecito and the outline have been slightly rotated for a few degrees to find the best overlap.



Overlap to Guede’s print. first try:



the outline is aligned on the left of the toe and with the left outline of the metatarsus, this is the first best overlap to Guede’s footprint. If we rotate the outline clockwise further, the right outline is no longer alligned to the shape, and the rest of the lines don't find any better match.
The picture shows the outline doesn’t fit. The toe of the bathmat print is not covered by Guede’s foot on its right side, and the second toe misses completely the blood mark and the latter is too “low” for the second toe. The attachment of the blood mark with the toe is unexplained, since it falls in an area not covered by the foot.
The more serious problem however is on the right, the margin of the bathmat stain is definitely placed off side from the foot. The plantar arch of the bathmat print has clearly a smaller curvature and the prints look very different here.



Overlap to Guede’s print, second try:



bathmat print aligned with the right margin of Guede’s print. The whole left side of the toe is not covered. The right margin of the toe falls in a clear area, and the second toe is even more far away from the mark that goes down even lower. There is an area uncovered on the left of the metatarsus. The plantar arches are slightly closer in this picture, since Guede’s footprint is placed a little more “down”, yet still they look very distant and the prints appear to have different plantar arches.



Overlap to Sollecito’s print:



The result is completely different. At a first glance, the metatarsus has the same shape. The left and right margin coincide with the bathmat print. The plantar arch fits almost perfectly, except in the lower portion, however here the shape of bathmat print shows there was an area of non-contact. The big toe covers the stain. The blood mark on the left – for which I left an ample, “comfortable” outline - is consistent with the toe. However there is a white area below the big toe. This area is the main argument for Giulia Bongiorno.
The compatibility with Sollecito’s foot can be assessed in this overlapping, albeit the intrinsic error.
It is also fairly evident that Guede’s footprint has a very different shape, and the correction of a millimetre error could hardly reduce the difference significantly.


LINK TO ORIGINAL POST


See next post for (final) Part 4

Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 4 - The footprint in numbers from the Massei report



A - The bathmat print - - - - > measurement pts : millimetres

(in bold, the measurements showing differences between RS and RG)

Toe : 33x39
Metatarsus : 99x50
Plantar arch width : 39
Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 28
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 8
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: 99, 92 , 75
Plantar arch, distances 8-9 and 9-10: 40, 43



B - Sollecito’s footprint

(in blue the results compatible with the bathmat print found not compatible in Guede’s print; in black bold, the other results compatible with the bathmat print for which the comparison with Guede is missing )

Toe : 30x37 compatible (disputes, measurement denied by .. )
Metatarsus : 99x55 compatible
Plantar arch width: 40 compatible

Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 28
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 8
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: 99, 92 , 75
Plantar arch, distances [8-9] and [9-10]: 40, 42


Sollecito’s foot has an array of sizes in which 10 measurements out of 10 are compatible with the bathmat print. Lucky combination. Only one is disputed, with arguments rejected by all judges.



C - Guede’s footprint:

(in red, the results non compatible with the bathmat print found compatible in Sollecito’s)

Toe: 23x43 not compatible (disputed)
Metatarsus 57x98
Plantar arch width: 39
Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 20
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 12
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: [i]?[i]
Plantar arch, distances 8-9 and 9-10: 36, 37


Rudy’s foot shows an array of measurements in which 5 out of 7 known pieces of data are non compatible. Three measurements are missing in our information set (we could assume that possibly not all pieces of data were discussed in court). This means there are 4 measurements not compatible with the bathmat print in addition to the toe width.

We can realize the greatest amount of different measurements to rule out Rudy Guede comes from the plantar arch. The curvatures of the bathmat print is well outlined and the radius is too short for Guede’s foot. The very narrow curvature of Sollecito’s plantar arch is coincident with the bathmat print. The left and right margins are coincident, and the toe is compatible with the stain while Rudy’s second toe is not.

The other Rinaldi’s measurements:
Problems are not finished for Sollecito, because of the the utter similarity between Sollecito’s footprint and one of the corridor prints. This similarities include the length (not compatible with Amanda), the peculiar toe morphology, and the heel width

Hallway print 2 :

Corr. print heel: 58 Sollecito: 57 Guede : 51
length : 245 244 247 (not compatible with Knox)

Not compatible with Knox for various reasons, among them a total length of 245 mm, and a plantar length of 189 mm.
Not compatible with Guede in the heel: 58/59 mm is only compatible with Sollecito (57) and this is a peculiar datum characterizing Sollecitos’ foot.
The toe is surprisingly coincident with the UACV Sollecito’s print, it is 29/30 mm wide. only compatible with Sollecito.

All this research will require, as a further integration, a description of the defensive appeal arguments, and an assessment about their weakness.


LINK TO ORIGINAL POST