The Truth Will Set Them Free
Injustice in Perugia
A site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito
Links
The Truth About the Bare Footprint on the Bathmat
One of the myths surrounding the evidence in this case is that Rudy Guede's foot is too big to have made the print on the bathmat, but Raffaele's foot is the right size. This is simply not true.
In fact, Rudy's reference footprint is longer overall than Raffaele's, but the forefoot region is neither longer nor wider. This part of Rudy's foot is actually a little smaller than Raffaele's. Moreover, the reference prints for both Raffaele and Rudy are longer in the forefoot region than the print on the bathmat.
The myth about the size of Rudy's foot is largely the result of the report that Lorenzo Rinaldi presented in court. Lorenzo Rinaldi is the director of the print identity department of the Italian Police. Rinaldi showed a side-by-side comparison of the dimensions of the print on the mat versus the dimensions of Rudy's forefoot. This exhibit does a good job of creating the impression that Rudy's foot is far too big to have made the print on the mat, but only because Rinaldi made a serious error in his measurements.
Below is a picture from Rinaldi's report, comparing the bathmat print with Rudy's forefoot. Rinaldi has marked a measurement of 50mm for the mat, and he has marked the comparable span on Rudy's reference print as 66.7mm.
The problem is that the 66.7mm number shown above is wrong. The correct measurement should be about 55mm (versus 57mm on Raffaelle's reference footprint).
This is something anyone can check. All it takes is a graphics program with a caliper tool. The image above has been set for a display width of 740 pixels to fit the page format, but if you right-click to save it or retrieve it from your browser's cache, you will see that its actual resolution is 922 by 494 pixels. The horizontal measurement marked as 96mm on Rudy's reference print is about 341 pixels, and the vertical measurement marked as 66.7mm is 196 pixels. The math works out as follows:
96mm / 341 pixels = 0.281524927mm per pixel x 196 pixels = 55.17888563mm
Therefore, the length of the vertical span should be 55.2mm instead 66.7mm. One could, however, hypothesize that the error lies in the horizontal measurement. We can check that by comparing it against the other two measurements shown in the image, 43mm (151 pixels) for the length of the big toe and 23mm (84 pixels) for its width.
96mm / 341 pixels = 0.281524927mm per pixel x 151 pixels = 42.51026393mm
96mm / 341 pixels = 0.281524927mm per pixel x 84 pixels = 23.648093842mm
The measurements for the length and width of the toe, and the width of the foot, are approximately consistent with one another, but the vertical measurement is off by more than a centimeter.
The critical error in Lorenzo Rinaldi's measurements
It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.
The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.
The results of the footprint on the bathmat are inconclusive. As you can see from the errors in measurment made by the prosecution's presentation, the footprint clearly doesn't incriminate Raffaele Sollecito.
Page one: Details the footprints and shoe prints found in the cottage that were attributed to a specific person by the prosecution. This page also talks about luminol. What is luminol and how is it used by investigators?
Page two: Details the footprints, shoe prints and stains that were not attributed to any specific person.
*Page three: Details the bare footprint, set in blood, on the bathmat in the bathroom.
Page Four: Details the two shoe prints found in Meredith's room. One print was said to belong to Amanda and the other to Raffaele. The truth is, both prints belong to Rudy.
Page one: Details the footprints and shoe prints found in the cottage that were attributed to a specific person by the prosecution. This page also talks about luminol. What is luminol and how is it used by investigators?
Page two: Details the footprints, shoe prints and stains that were not attributed to any specific person.
You are currently on page three.
Page Four: Details the two shoe prints found in Meredith's room. One print was said to belong to Amanda and the other to Raffaele. The truth is, both prints belong to Rudy.
The photo below shows a close up of a partial bloody bare footprint found on the bathmat in the bathroom The prosecution went to great lengths to show that this bare footprint was made by Raffaele Sollecito.
The photo below shows the bathmat in the bathroom. You can see the bare foot print, set in blood, on the bottom left corner of the bathmat.
Charlie Wilkes - www.friendsofamanda.org, provided this excellent analysis of the footprint on the bathmat. His analysis clearly shows that the prosecution's expert had the measurements wrong.
Click to see enlarged image
The image above is the forefoot part of Raffaele's reference footprint, with Rinaldi's measurements noted. A check with the caliper will show that these measurements are all consistent with one another. Photos of the bathmat print next to an evidence tag with a scale show that Rinaldi's 50mm measurement is also correct. Therefore, the correct measurements for this span are as follows:
Bathmat 50mm
Rudy 55mm
Raffaele 57mm
