RESEARCH ON THE BATHMAT PRINT: PART 1
The following research was by PMF member 'Yummi'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 LOCATIONSee following post for part 2.