The Lonely Barren Tree

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 characteristics beyond Honesty Check: inhere’s this unrelated big toe is NOT like footprints “A” Honesty Honesty Check: Check: in this a a and Honesty Check: here’s person’s footprint we see that Honesty Check: in this their common length. “F”, which could be compatible with footprint footprint, where the big thetoe partisofnot thethe

Footprint “A”

footprint where the front Raffaele. Here the big toe points all of of the ball of the foot behind unrelated footprint, Itakes can’t ball elongated, the foot but which instead it line of the arch forms an outwardly rather the big toe takes pressure well determine the delineation of most leaves pressure aangle rather is round behind print. the Time out! Footprint What if these than inwardly. “F”“common obtuse rather than an into theparticular inside of area the step (that is, any behind big toe, angle. rather than behind the characteristics” are actually on acute the outside of the the front the ballfootprint). of the 2nd and 3rdoftoes. shared with all footprints? foot. To ensure that we’re not fooling ourselves, let’s do an Honesty Check for each attribute, by the colour performing a test toLet’s see saturate if we can Honesty Check: here’s a foot in the bathmat photo, to easily find other footprints of where see thethe footprint better.the ball of the foot unrelated persons, 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 Check: this one is which could 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 with the size of 42 Another characteristic you click backwards and these prints withis the missing toes. twoAprints the missing (or forwards a few times, you will Here’s The ball most big another toe of notable the on foot each shared behind of final in this fast The ballattribute of the foot behind very faint) toes. If the prints see itanalysis: clearly: behind the heavy attribute: the common these second two characteristic the foorprints and ballthird of toes the front inside the big toe appears tothe take correspond to Raffaele’s foot, pressure area of the ball of the foot appears between seems just tomostly in behind these be both elongated. two prints the 2nd to limit of the arch in both pressure on one it would seem that he walks foot, there is a definite line and be footprints an area toes is of the is specific much crooked forensic footprints forms side -3rd inside the foot with a gait which puts little whichan delineates a lower further pressure, big toe. and forms than a acute angle to the the while theforward outside portion pressure on the toes. pressure area. ball unique, ofball the similar foot shape the longitudinal axis of thein of the of thebehind foot big toe. both prints. foot. doesn’t 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” characteristics and attributes Footprint “F” which Footprint 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.

Footprint “C”

Honesty Check: the 2nd toe in Honesty Check: here’s a thisHonesty unrelated footprint clearly Check: this The qualitywhere of the the Luminol prints footprint big toe is protrudes beyond the tip of the unrelated footprint clearly isnot such that wealigned can’t make perfectly without the big shows toe. a large 2nd toe allball theof hundreds the foot or thousands the axis of of print. swirling lines which make the foot, but rather seemsupto Honesty Check: it the is inked footprints. However, the The pair size 37 Luminol point outwards. Another Honesty Check: this These Unlike In One There Both On the the big of size cottage is two the the two toe aof 37 similar size luminol most luminol in Luminol size these 42 tantalising prints, 37 prints prints two in in possible outside lateral to find part footprints ofform this “squiggly” line does seem to prints from the cottage example of a37 footprint with abe unrelated footprint clearly this footprints Luminol characteristics the fooprints from size pair the prints, the cottage cottage, from appears Luminol toes the of there (which are the this cottage to prints quite front is pair we with unrelated higher footprint arches or does with quite unique in its particular seem have an arch non-aligned big toe comes marks the space between measured visible, project similar of to have size the ofCheck: ato semi-oval the similar 37 form noticeably with Luminol in minor the to the delineation the lighter prior toes beyond prints empty and Honesty this unrelated lower notline present archers the (as same isinteresting the form, and not common toand the from which the cottage forms aat footprints right angle. the presentation exception space from pressure to the heads the other forward the pressure behind of cottage area toes. the ofoutside the the toes under size area 2nd is toes this lateral 37), under the toe. and footprint traces an outside case shape of of this pressure unrelated zones creases of other footprints. which may be compatible with the ball of the foot. both in squiggly arch. the front lateral have of crease of the part the ball big ofprints separating the toes of the foot. lateral line which is clearly a photo). as extremes the two Luminol prints. Raffaele (prints and “F”). aligned foot. the seem ball tostraight of form the“A” relatively foot with behind the curve. ball big the straight andtoe lines. thefrom axis the of the restfoot of (unlike the ballthe of the sizefoot. 42 prints we were examining).

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 tread (or better said, an Asics-like tread) has nothing in common with a Nike tread, on one hand. On the other, a size 46 sole dwarfs a size 37 sole. Amanda’s foot size equates to 23.8 cm. (The actual shoe would be a little longer)

Rudy’s foot size equates to 28.4 cm. (The actual shoe size would be a little longer)

24 cm

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.' "