Murder in Perugia

In some of the recent court sessions, the prosecution in the Meredith Kercher murder trial in Perugia dealt
with barefoot footprints pressed in blood, several of which were identified on the cottage floor tiles only after
the application of Luminol, a chemical substance which reacts with the iron in even slight, non-visible
bloodstains, making them visible under fluorescent light. Another footprint was a very visible barefoot
bloodstain on the bathroom mat in the small bathroom shared by Amanda Knox and Meredith.
Months ago, in the Updated “These Boots Were Made for Walking” presentation, we analysed these
footprints. We were able to conclude that whoever caused the barefoot footprints, some were compatible in
length with Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's feet (we didn't study characteristics other than length), and none
were compatible in length with Rudy Guede's giant basketball player's feet (Rudy left his own, Nike shoe
prints).
The objective of this new presentation is to revisit the footprints in question, and update our analysis of them
in light of Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi's forensic testimony in the courtroom last May 9.
For other presentations on this case, timelines, multi-opinioned debate, transcripts, images, and articles and
much more content, I highly recommend the following two sites which have resulted from Steve Huff’s True
Crime Weblog on this tragedy:
Perugia Murder File
True Justice For Meredith Kercher
(While you’re at it, visit Steve’s current blog, published by Village Voice Media: http://www.truecrimereport
.com/)
Also take a moment to check out the excellent analysis on this case on Miss Represented’s blog.
Any irony or sarcasm which may be encountered in the presentation or our discussions is not meant by any
means to trivialise the pain and suffering, and brutal senseless murder that Meredith experienced, nor to
reduce her memory.
As we go through the scenarios of what may have happened in the crime, the only moment which is truly
important is the day when all the evidence is presented in court, like in any other serious crime case.
I can only hope that there will be one single ending, that justice is served to those responsible for each of the
crimes which have been determined by the Italian judiciary. I am buoyed by the fact that the victim’s family
has continued to express confidence in the Italian justice system.
Let’s take two pairs of barefoot footprints from the Updated “These Boots Were Made for Walking”
presentation. We measured one pair as being compatible in length with Raffaele’s feet ….

… and the other pair of barefoot footprints are compatible in length with Amanda’s feet ….
 Honesty Check: here’s a foot where the
If we put footprints “A” and “F” together, we can try to identify shared
Honesty characteristics
Check: inhere’s
this beyond
unrelated
bigHonesty
Honesty
toe is NOT
Honesty Check:
Check:
like in this
footprints
Check: here’s a a and
“A”
their common length. person’s
“F”, Honesty
which
footprint footprint
Check:
could
footprint, be
where we
in see
this
compatible
the big
thetoe that
thethe
with
partisofnot
all footprint
of of
the
unrelated
Raffaele. ball
Here where
of the the
footprint,
the big toe front
foot
pointsbehind
Itakes
can’t
ball
elongated,
line the
of foot
the but
which
arch instead
forms anit
the big toe
determine outwardly
takes
the pressurerather
delineation well
of
Footprint “A” Time out! Footprint most
“F”“common
What if these leaves
pressure
obtuse aangle
rather
is round
behind
rather print.
than
than thean
inwardly.
intoanytheparticular
big inside of area
toe, angle.the step
behind (that is,
rather than behind the
characteristics” are actually on acute
the outside of the
2nd and 3rdoftoes.
the front the ballfootprint).
of the
shared with all footprints? foot.
To ensure that we’re not fooling
ourselves, let’s do an Honesty
Check for each attribute, by
performing a test toLet’s
see saturate
if we can the colour
Honesty Check: here’s a foot
in the bathmat
easily find other footprints of photo, to
footprint better.the ball of the foot
see thethe
unrelated persons, where
where
behind the 2nd and 3rd toes
attribute is different. does NOT project itself
forward, like in the case of
the Perugia forensic prints
Honesty
which could Check: this one is
be compatible
easy. In addition to the other
with Raffaele.
3rd party footprints we have
seen with all the toes, here’s
another footprint which
This attribute is subtle, but if
contrasts
Another with the size of
characteristic 42
you click backwards and these
prints withis
twoAprints the the missing
missing toes.
(or
forwardsThe
The a
Here’s
final few
ball
most
big times,
another
toe
ofnotable
ballattribute the
on
of the foot you
foot
each
shared
in this will
behind
of
behindfast
very
see faint)
itanalysis:
clearly: toes.
attribute:
the
common
thesesecond
twobehind If the
the
characteristic
the
foorprints
and prints
ballthird
of heavy
the big toe the front
appears tothe
inside toes
take
correspond
pressurefoot
limit area
appears
between
seems just
of to
theof
in Raffaele’s
the
tomostly
behind
these
be both
arch ball
elongated.
two
in of
prints
theboth foot,
the
2nd to
pressure on one
it would
foot, there
and
be seem
is
footprints
an a that
definite he walks
line
-3rd
forensic
side area toesisof
footprints
inside the
is
thespecific
much
crooked
foot forms
-
with
whichan a gait
delineates
further
pressure,
big toe. which puts
a lower little
while theforward
acute and
angle
outside forms
to than
the the
portion a
pressure
pressureball
unique, on
area.
ofball
thethe
similartoes.
foot
longitudinal
of the of thebehind
axis shape
of thein
foot the
big toe.
both
foot.
doesn’t prints.
seem to take much
pressure.
There are nine characteristics which we have identified in common between Footprints “A”
and “F”, including their length. The only characteristic that we know about Raffaele’s foot is
that it is size 42. I suppose that Lorenzo Rinaldi’s presentation to the trial went into much
more detail concerning all the“A”
Footprint characteristics and attributes
Footprint “F” which Raffaele’s footprint?
he detected in the cottage size 42 footprints, on one hand, and
Raffaele’s footprints and/or casts which were made in custody, on
the other. Rinaldi would have worked on many images and
measurements which we don’t have access to.
If we assume that the same types of characteristics as those which
we have observed in the cottage size 42 footprints are present in
Raffaele’s “custody” footprint, we can speculate and draw a
“composite” image of what Raffaele’s black ink footprint looks like
(as opposed to the blood based print, or a Luminol print):
Now let’s put footprints “C” and “E” together and identify shared characteristics beyond their
common length. In the earlier presentation, we found them to be compatible in length with
Amanda’s feet.
Footprint “E”

Honesty Check:

The arch in this

unrelated
footprint forms an
obtuse angle.

Honesty Check: the 2nd toe in

Honesty Check: here’s a
thisHonesty
unrelated footprint
Check: this clearly
The qualitywhere
footprint of the the Luminol big toe prints
is
protrudes
unrelated beyondfootprint the tip of the
clearly
isnot
such that wealigned
perfectly can’t make without the
big shows
toe. a large 2nd toe
allball
theofhundreds
the foot or thousands the axis of of
print.
swirling
the lines
foot, but which
rather make
seemsupto
Honesty Check: it
the is
inked
point footprints.
The
Honesty
These
Unlike
In
One
There
Both
On the
possible
outside pair
outwards.
the
big
of Check:
size
the
the
two aof
cottage
is
twotoe
lateral
to 37 However,
size
Another
similar
findsize this
luminol
most
luminol
in Luminol
part size37
these
42 the
Luminol
tantalising
ofform
footprintsprints,
37
prints
prints
two
this in in
“squiggly”
withprints
example
unrelated
this
unrelated
higherline
of
footprints
Luminol froma37thedoes
footprint
characteristics
the
fooprints
from size
pair
the the
footprint
prints,
cottage
cottage,
from
appears
footprint Luminol
arches toes seem
cottage
the
of
there with
clearly
(which
orare
the
this
does to
cottage
toprints
with abe
quite
front
is
pair
we
quite unique
seem
non-aligned
marks
notline
of
to
have
Honesty
lower ato
the
measured
visible,
project
similar
size
the
present
archers inhave
big
space
ofCheck:
semi-oval
the
similar
37
form its
noticeably
with Luminol
thein
minor particular
toe
the
to an
the
this
(as arch
comes
between
delineation
same the
isinteresting
lighter
prior
toes
beyond
prints
empty
unrelated
the and
form,
from
the and
which
the
footprint
case
shape ofofnot
cottage
forms
presentation
exception
space
from
pressure
to
the
heads
the
other
forward
the
traces
this common
pressure
behind
of cottage
pressurearea
toes.
the aat
footprints
ofoutside
anthe
unrelated right
the
toes
under
size
area
2nd
istoand
toes
outside
zones the
angle.
this
lateral
37),
under
the
toe.
and
creases
which
the
lateral
photo).
the of
may
ball
as extremes
both
in
squiggly
arch.
thefront
line
two other
of
lateral
have be
the
of
which footprints.
compatible
foot.
crease
of
the
part
Luminol the ball
big
isofprints
separating
the
toes
of the
clearly
prints. with
foot.
a
Raffaele
aligned
foot.
the
seem
curve. ball(prints
tostraight
ofform the“A” and
relatively
footwith “F”).
behind
the
ball big
the
straight
andtoe lines.
thefrom axis the of therestfoot
of
(unlike
the ballthe of the sizefoot. 42 prints
we were examining).
Footprint “C”
There are ten characteristics which we have identified in common between Footprints “C”
and “E”, including their length. The only characteristic that we know about Amanda’s foot is
that it is size 37. We can suppose that Lorenzo Rinaldi’s presentation to the trial identified
- from his expert point of
Footprint “E”
view - more detailed
similarities between the
Luminol prints and
Amanda’s foot cast and /
or footprints taken in
custody.

Amanda’s footprint?

However, on the basis of the

few characteristics we have
identified, we can speculate
about what Amanda’s footprint
in Rinaldi’s possession looks
like.
Footprint “C”
Lorenzo Rinaldi also testified about another footprint of which there has been very little
mention in the press: a size 37 tennis shoeprint made in blood, found on the pillow which
was under the victim’s body.
The above police investigation report image of the pillow highlights the shoeprint in the
square in the lower left. Unfortunately, the resolution isn’t high enough to make out much
detail.
We can try to enhance that area of the photo to try to see more …
That highlights a few details, but doesn’t help us much.
 ?

That highlights a few details, but doesn’t help us much.

Maybe one can imagine the form of the shoe …. however, that form is hardly obvious.
What we do know, is that a second forensic expert backed up Rinaldi’s observations, and
went even further, suggesting that the shoe was a size 37.5 Asics tennis shoe.
Amanda doesn’t seem to have owned such a brand of shoe, however, it would be of
interest for comparisons to be made between the soles of her footwear and the types of
treads which the second expert identified:
If the size 37 tennis shoe print was made by an Asics shoe, it could have been one of these
4 models. Whether the brand is Asics or not is of lesser importance. What is important is to
understand that the ladies shoe could not be confused with the Nike print in neither tread
nor size …
… and in fact we see just that: the Asics Rudy’s foot size equates to 28.4 cm. (The
tread (or better said, an Asics-like tread) actual shoe size would be a little longer)
has nothing in common with a Nike
tread, on one hand. On the other, a size
46 sole dwarfs a size 37 sole.
24 cm
Amanda’s foot size
equates to 23.8 cm.
(The actual shoe
would be a little
longer)
18 cm

12 cm

6 cm
 CONCLUSION ( 1/3 )
We have tried to perform a relationship analysis between barefoot footprints, similar (although necessarily less
sophisticated), to that done by Lorenzo Rinaldi in his expert forensic testimony to the court last May 9. We have been
able to identify 9 points of correspondence between the first set of footprints which would be compatible with Raffaele
Sollecito's right foot, and 10 points of correspondence between the second set of footprints, which would be compatible
with Amanda's right foot. Of course, we don’t have Raffaele’s and Amanda’s footprints which were taken in custody.
These specific characteristics are not generic, that is, they are not common to all footprints, as we have confirmed with
our “Honesty Checks”. Were we to have access to better resolution images and more accurate measurements, I'm sure
we would have many more common points.
QUESTIONS:
Do Dr. Rinaldi's observations mean that those footprints are definitely Amanda's and Raffaele's?
Not in 100% irrefutable legal terms. However, the more points of correspondence which are identified between two
footprints, the more likely that footprints are made by the same foot. What's more, that consideration is multiplied if you
have similar positive results for footprints from not just one, but two persons who aren't sought out as unrelated,
exogenous, coincidentally correct samples out of the 10 billion persons who make up humanity, but are in fact two
persons who are related (boyfriend - girlfriend) and who could fit into a scenario for being present in the cottage
between 9 p.m. on 1 November 2007 and 10:30 a.m. the next morning in Perugia, Italy.
It may be argued that this evidence - or better said, this analysis - is flawed or that the results are due to the proverbial
statistical lottery. In any case, it would be imprudent for the jury to ignore Rinaldi's expert testimony relating to the
footprints, which we understand from press reports was well prepared, well presented, and stood up to the attempts to
discredit it by the defence legal teams (which is, of course, their job).
If the footprint evidence is true, does it mean that Amanda or Raffaele are guilty of murder or the other charges
which they face?
No, not by itself. A footprint does not a murderer make. However, if we are swayed by Rinaldi’s analysis (personally, I
have to say that it seems quite convincing), we have to ask ourselves:
- what were they doing in the cottage, what did they do there, and at what times were they there during that night?
- why can't they tell us, or why haven't they told us the Truth? The Truth isn't just some of the truth, or a convenient
legal truth (protected by a suspect's right to lie), but the Whole Truth.
The use of a suspect's right to silence does not show he or she is guilty of anything in particular. But if one is innocent
of charges, and in light of a certain weight of evidence being shown against you, it is probably best not to make use of
your right to silence, but - with the help of your legal advisors - lay out a logical and explicit defence strategy.
 CONCLUSION ( 2/3 )
I recently read an interesting article in The NY Times - Judging Honesty by Words, Not Fidgets, by Benedict Carey:
May 12, 2009
“Before any interrogation, before the two-way mirrors or bargaining or good-cop, bad-cop routines, police
officers investigating a crime have to make a very tricky determination: Is the person I’m interviewing being
honest, or spinning fairy tales? ....
Until recently, police departments have had little solid research to guide their instincts. But now forensic
scientists have begun testing techniques they hope will give officers, interrogators and others a kind of honesty
screen, an improved method of sorting doctored stories from truthful ones ....
Kevin Colwell, a psychologist at Southern Connecticut State University, has advised police departments .... He
says that people concocting a story prepare a script that is tight and lacking in detail.
'It’s like when your mom busted you as a kid, and you made really obvious mistakes,' Dr. Colwell said. 'Well,
now you’re working to avoid those.'
By contrast, people telling the truth have no script, and tend to recall more extraneous details and may even
make mistakes. They are sloppier ....
In several studies, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Hiscock-Anisman have reported one consistent difference: People
telling the truth tend to add 20 to 30 percent more external detail than do those who are lying. ‘This is how
memory works, by association,’ Dr. Hiscock-Anisman said. ‘If you’re telling the truth, this mental reinstatement of
contexts triggers more and more external details.’
Not so if you’ve got a concocted story and you’re sticking to it. ‘It’s the difference between a tree in full
flower in the summer and a barren stick in winter,’ said Dr. Charles Morgan .... “
Will the Barren Tree of Truth to which we have been witness during the course of an autumn, a winter, a spring, a
summer, another autumn, another winter, and another spring suddenly burst into bloom by the time this summer of
2009 arrives? (Three weeks distant at the time of writing this).
I am not betting on it, but I hope and pray that that may occur.
Perhaps Amanda is not legally guilty of the trial charges against her (or perhaps she is …). But in any case she is
morally responsible to tell the Whole Truth, for many reasons, including - above all - the Kerchers’ right to know
everything possible about what happened to their daughter, and - in purely selfish terms - the viability of Amanda’s own
reinsertion into the world on the day when she finally returns to Seattle and she has to convince the general public that
she really did make every effort to support the investigation, respond to questions and help clarify Meredith’s murder in
any minor or major way which she could.
 CONCLUSION ( 3/3 )
It’s never too late to start working on redemption, but it does get more and more difficult to achieve as more time
passes.
Even Judge Heavey tells people to assume their responsibilities, regardless, as he says, of whether your actions are
right or wrong (click to see his statement from 1995). It’s clear that his apology in a 1995 legislative investigation
referred to moral responsibilities, and not just legal liability, as he was never found legally responsible for wrongdoing in
that case (the issue goes back to when he was a politician). I wish he had been as public and explicit in his apology to
Prosecutor Mignini for the unsupported accusations of illegal actions on the part of Italian justice officials that the
American judge made on Washington State Supreme Court official letterhead - as published by Anne Bremner on her
website (Anne has now left the link hanging by removing the document, but you can still find it on PMF), calling Heavey
“a member of the Friends of Amanda group”.
Part of the problem, perhaps, is the energetic effort on the part of people who believe they are supporting Amanda, who
have turned her position into an “all or nothing” bet. Some of Amanda's supposed supporters don't give a hoot about the
Kerchers (some have claimed that this case is about Amanda, not Meredith). However, if they are truly concerned about
her return and reinsertion into normal family and social activities - at whatever date - then they would do well to
encourage her to tell the Whole Truth. It will help her emotionally and give her the confidence to state in the future that
whatever happened, she has explained what she knows about this case.
I personally find her "barren tree" up until 18 December 2007 and subsequence silence rather distressing; it definitely
does not contribute to the public being able to trust and believe that Amanda was completely unaware of and separate
from the occurrence of the crimes in the cottage on 1 November 2007
================
Post Script:
In the name of complete disclosure, I should also quote the end of the above mentioned New York Times article
concerning police questioning, concerning the limits of the “barren tree” method of detecting truth or lies:
” This approach, as promising as it is, has limitations. It applies only to a person talking about what happened
during a specific time — not to individual facts, like, 'Did you see a red suitcase on the floor?' It may be poorly
suited, too, for someone who has been traumatized and is not interested in talking, Dr. Morgan said. And it is not
likely to flag the person who changes one small but crucial detail in a story — 'Sure, I was there, I threw some
punches, but I know nothing about no knife' — or, for that matter, the expert or pathological liar.' "