Translated Pages From Professor Vinci’s Bathmat Analysis

Defense Expert Professor Vinci’s Bathmat Analysis: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/Valutazione_orme_animazione.pdf

 

Analysis of two foot prints attributed to Raffaele Sollecito and collected at the scene of the crime.

Analysis of two foot prints attributed to Raffaele Sollecito and collected at the scene of the crime.

Elements analyzed: • tests submitted into the court records • medical records of Raffaele Sollecito • anatomical examinations of Raffaele Sollecito’s feet • tests carried out directly on the exhibits and samples Equipment used: • Professional reflex digital camera • Computerized system for image analysis • Graphics software • Certified measuring systems • Alternative system of illumination (Crimescope)

Elements analyzed:

• tests submitted into the court records

• medical records of Raffaele Sollecito

• anatomical examinations of Raffaele Sollecito’s feet

• tests carried out directly on the exhibits and samples

Equipment used:

• Professional reflex digital camera

• Computerized system for image analysis

• Graphics software

• Certified measuring systems

• Alternative system of illumination (Crimescope)

Preliminary functional and anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet

Preliminary functional and anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet

Baropodometric study of Sollecito carried out in 2006 for diagnostic/therapeutic reasons (editor's note: a test to assess the quality of the support provided by the feet in a static position, performed the year before the murder)

Baropodometric study of Sollecito carried out in 2006 for diagnostic/therapeutic reasons (editor’s note: a test to assess the quality of the support provided by the feet in a static position, performed the year before the murder)

… more of the same…

Baropodometric study of Sollecito carried out in 2006 for diagnostic/therapeutic reasons (editor’s note: a test to assess the quality of the support provided by the feet in a static position, performed the year before the murder) 

There is an evident tendency towards valgus (teddy: outward deviation of the big toe toward the second toe) of the right big toe which determines the “hammer-like” characteristic of the second toe with there not being any pressure applied by the distal phalange (the bone at the outer extremity of the toe). This is not the case with the left foot.

There is an evident tendency towards valgus (editor’s note: outward deviation of the big toe toward the second toe) of the right big toe which determines the “hammer-like” characteristic of the second toe with there not being any pressure applied by the distal phalange (the bone at the outer extremity of the toe). This is not the case with the left foot.

The numbers indicate the pressure in grams of the various parts of the sole of the foot. It is evident how the first phalange of the big toe applies only modest pressure (value of 16 grams) if compared to that of the opposite foot (35-40 grams).

The numbers indicate the pressure in grams of the various parts of the sole of the foot. It is evident how the first phalange of the big toe applies only modest pressure (value of 16 grams) if compared to that of the opposite foot (35-40 grams).

Anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet (May 2009)

Anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet (May 2009)

Same

Anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet (May 2009): SN = Left, DX = Right

Same: SN=Left, DX=Right

Anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet (May 2009)

Same

Initial Considerations, Sollecito’s foot prints utilized by the Scientific Police for purpose of comparison.

Among the prints obtained experimentally by the Scientific Police there is a clear difference between the left and right foot.

This was not caused by an error in the method of the examination, but rather is caused by the anatomical particularities of Sollecito, as evidenced in the baropodometric tests and already show previously.

Initial Considerations, Sollecito’s foot prints utilized by the Scientific Police for purpose of comparison. Among the prints obtained experimentally by the Scientific Police there is a clear difference between the left and right foot. This was not caused by an error in the method of the examination, but rather is caused by the anatomical particularities of Sollecito, as evidenced in the baropodometric tests and already show previously.

Preliminary considerations on the visible print on the bathmat.

Preliminary considerations on the visible print on the bathmat.

Original position of the bathmat in the bathroom, as reported during the site inspection.

Original position of the bathmat in the bathroom, as reported during the site inspection.

Complete print of the foot as can be noticed from the images take during the site inspection.

Complete print of the foot as can be noticed from the images take during the site inspection.

Trace of the distal phalange of the second toe.

Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe.

Position of the trace relating to the second toe.

Trace of the distal phalange of the second toe. Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe. Position of the trace relating to the second toe.

Position of the trace relating to the second toe.

Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe.

Position of the trace relating to the second toe. Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe

Position of the trace relating to the second toe.

Images used by the Scientific Police for comparative purposes.

Position of the trace relating to the second toe. Images used by the Scientific Police for comparative purposes.

Investigation carried out at the offices of the Scientific Police in Rome, 25th May 2009.

Investigation carried out at the offices of the Scientific Police in Rome, 25th May 2009.

The bathmat as photographed by us in the laboratory dated 25th May 2009.

The bathmat as photographed by us in the laboratory dated 25th May 2009.

During our investigation the presence of 3 long hairs was detected (one of which contained the bulb), which was subsequently collected by Dr. Stefanoni after we had reported it.

During our investigation the presence of 3 long hairs was detected (one of which contained the bulb), which was subsequently collected by Dr. Stefanoni after we had reported it.

Foot print on bathmat.First phase of investigation.

Morphological analysis

(Not carried out by the Scientific Police).

Foot print on bathmat. First phase of investigation. Morphological analysis (Not carried out by the Scientific Police).

Morphological analysis with equal scale (1): Different width of the print of the first metatarsal and different width of the whole forefoot.

23

Morphological analysis: Demonstration of the presence of the impression of the distal phalanx of the second toe.

24

Morphological analysis (2): Trace of distal phalange of the second toe is not present for Sollecito’s foot print.

Morphological analysis with equal scale (3): Different position of the interruption between the print of the toe and the metatarsal.

Morphological analysis with equal scale (3): Different position of the interruption between the print of the toe and the metatarsal.

Page #26 from Professor Vinci's report.

Morphological analysis with equal scale (4): Different angle of the big toe.

Observation of the foot print with Crimescope.

Observation of the foot print with Crimescope.

Complete confirmation of all measurements.

Complete confirmation of all measurements.

Page #29 from Professor Vinci's report.

Entirely different positions for all toes.

Divergent points.

Divergent points.

At this point, according to the norms recommended for any type of comparative analysis, the negative result of the morphological analysis (differences in the categorized characteristics) should prevent the need to go on to the second phase of the investigation. In other words, on the basis of these results the footprint in question should already be excluded as not even being potentially attributable to Raffaele Sollecito.

At this point, according to the norms recommended for any type of comparative analysis, the negative result of the morphological analysis (differences in the categorized characteristics) should prevent the need to go on to the second phase of the investigation. In other words, on the basis of these results the footprint in question should already be excluded as not even being potentially attributable to Raffaele Sollecito.

Bathmat footprint, second phase of investigation: Metric analysis, carried out for the sake of verification. All our measurements were taken utilizing the professional computer program for dimensional morphometry, Image-Pro Plus (Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

Bathmat footprint, second phase of investigation: Metric analysis, carried out for the sake of verification. All our measurements were taken utilizing the professional computer program for dimensional morphometry, Image-Pro Plus (Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

Considerable agreement between our measurements and those taken by the Scientific Police.

Considerable agreement between our measurements and those taken by the Scientific Police.

Blue spot: defines the right side chosen by the Scientific Police to define the transversal diameter of the big toe. Red spot: Actual edge that is visible

Blue spot: defines the right side chosen by the Scientific Police to define the transversal diameter of the big toe. Red spot: Actual edge that is visible

Disagreement with the measurements

Disagreement with the measurements

Measurements taken by the Scientific Police. Erroneous point chosen to define the transversal diameter of the big toe.

Measurements taken by the Scientific Police. Erroneous point chosen to define the transversal diameter of the big toe.

Significant differences in the values

Significant differences in the values

Difference of almost 1cm between our measurements and those of the Scientific Police.

Difference of almost 1cm between our measurements and those of the Scientific Police.

Difference in values. Variation of more than half a centimeter.

Difference in values. Variation of more than half a centimeter.

Considerable disagreements in the measurements due to the subjective choice of the reference points. On the other hand, the morphological analysis is certainly reliable and usable. Confirms the exclusion of Raffaele Sollecito.

Considerable disagreements in the measurements due to the subjective choice of the reference points. On the other hand, the morphological analysis is certainly reliable and usable. Confirms the exclusion of Raffaele Sollecito.

 

Main Page: Rudy Guede’s Footprint On Meredith’s Bathmat

All Translated Text Of Professor Vinci’s Analysis Including Luminol Section

1. Analysis of two foot prints attributed to Raffaele Sollecito and collected at the scene of the crime.
2. Elements analyzed:
• tests submitted into the court records
• medical records of Raffaele Sollecito
• anatomical examinations of Raffaele Sollecito’s feet
• tests carried out directly on the exhibits and samples
Equipment used:
• Professional reflex digital camera
• Computerized system for image analysis
• Graphics software
• Certified measuring systems
• Alternative system of illumination (Crimescope)
3. Preliminary functional and anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet
4. Baropodometric study of Sollecito carried out in 2006 for diagnostic/therapeutic reasons (editor’s note: a test to assess the quality of the support provided by the feet in a static position, performed the year before the murder)
5. … more of the same…
6. There is an evident tendency towards valgus (teddy: outward deviation of the big toe toward the second toe) of the right big toe which determines the “hammer-like” characteristic of the second toe with there not being any pressure applied by the distal phalange (the bone at the outer extremity of the toe). This is not the case with the left foot.
7. The numbers indicate the pressure in grams of the various parts of the sole of the foot. It is evident how the first phalange of the big toe applies only modest pressure (value of 16 grams) if compared to that of the opposite foot (35-40 grams).
8. Anatomical study of Sollecito’s feet (May 2009)
9. Same
10. Same: SN = Left, DX = Right
11. Same
12. Initial Considerations, Sollecito’s foot prints utilized by the Scientific Police for purpose of comparison. Among the prints obtained experimentally by the Scientific Police there is a clear difference between the left and right foot. This was not caused by an error in the method of the examination, but rather is caused by the anatomical particularities of Sollecito, as evidenced in the baropodometric tests and already show previously.
13. Preliminary considerations on the visible print on the bathmat.
14. Original position of the bathmat in the bathroom, as reported during the site inspection.
15. Complete print of the foot as can be noticed from the images take during the site inspection.
16. Trace of the distal phalange of the second toe. Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe. Position of the trace relating to the second toe.
17. Position of the trace relating to the second toe. Salience of the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe.
18. Position of the trace relating to the second toe. Images used by the Scientific Police for comparative purposes.
19. Investigation carried out at the offices of the Scientific Police in Rome, 25th May 2009.
20. The bathmat as photographed by us in the laboratory dated 25th May 2009.
21. During our investigation the presence of 3 long hairs was detected (one of which contained the bulb), which was subsequently collected by Dr. Stefanoni after we had reported it.
—-
22. Foot print on bathmat. First phase of investigation. Morphological analysis (Not carried out by the Scientific Police).
23. Morphological analysis with equal scale (1): Different width of the print of the first metatarsal and different width of the whole forefoot.
24. Morphological analysis (2): Trace of distal phalange of the second toe is not present for Sollecito’s foot print.
25. Morphological analysis with equal scale (3): Different position of the interruption between the print of the toe and the metatarsal.
26. Morphological analysis with equal scale (4): Different angle of the big toe.
27. Observation of the foot print with Crimescope.
28. Complete confirmation of all measurements.
29. Entirely different positions for all toes.
30. Divergent points.
31. At this point, according to the norms recommended for any type of comparative analysis, the negative result of the morphological analysis (differences in the categorized characteristics) should prevent the need to go on to the second phase of the investigation. In other words, on the basis of these results the footprint in question should already be excluded as not even being potentially attributable to Raffaele Sollecito.
32. Bathmat footprint, second phase of investigation: Metric analysis, carried out for the sake of verification. All our measurements were taken utilizing the professional computer program for dimensional morphometry, Image-Pro Plus (Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA)
33. Considerable agreement between our measurements and those taken by the Scientific Police.
34. Blue spot: defines the right side chosen by the Scientific Police to define the transversal diameter of the big toe. Red spot: Actual edge that is visible
35. Disagreement with the measurements
36. Measurements taken by the Scientific Police. Erroneous point chosen to define the transversal diameter of the big toe.
37. Significant differences in the values
38. Difference of almost 1cm between our measurements and those of the Scientific Police.
39. Difference in values. Variation of more than half a centimeter.
40. Considerable disagreements in the measurements due to the subjective choice of the reference points. On the other hand, the morphological analysis is certainly reliable and usable. Confirms the exclusion of Raffaele Sollecito.
41. Print evidenced by Luminol. First phase of investigation. Morphological analysis. (Not carried out by the Scientific Police).
42. Positive luminal print (#2 of 18 Dec 2007).
43. Preliminary considerations. There are significant elements attributable to “sliding” and not simply a perpendicular contact.
44. The photographs taken in the dark in order to document the traces highlighted by luminol are necessarily always taken under extreme conditions and in any case the relationship between very long exposure times and choice of aperture are critical. The resulting images can therefore be very suggestive, but certainly do not correspond to the effective reality or to that visible to the naked eye.
45. Red lines = reference lines. Print revealed by luminol. Analysis of the shape of the sole by making both the same size on the basis of the distance between the apex of the big toe and the heel.
46. The print of the second toe is very evident, which we have already demonstrated is absence in Sollecito’s right foot, as demonstrated in the baropodometric test. The print of the first phalange of the big toe is also very evident.
47. Mapping of the line obtained by connecting the apexes of the toes of Sollecito’s right foot. Note the apex of the second toe.
48. Mapping of luminal print and Sollecito’s foot are entirely different when noting the apex of the second toe.
49. Morphological analysis of the luminal print and Sollecito’s foot using true measurements. Missing placement of second toe. Different position of all the toes. Different placement highlighted for the phalangeal metatarsal of the second toe.
50. Even in this instance, the negative result of the morphological comparison negates the need to continue to the second phase of the investigation. Therefore once again we must exclude that the print in question can be in the slightest way attributable to Raffaele Sollecito.
51. Second phase of investigation. Metric analysis. All our measurements were taken utilizing a professional computer program for dimensional morphometry, Image-Pro Plus (Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA)
52. Method adopted by the Scientific Police in choosing the units of measurement (Rinaldi-Boemia). “Utilizing the photographic images in conditions of correct lighting (print #5) we proceeded in the linear measurement of the width of a tile. The measurement of this tile (corresponding to the area in which two prints were revealed) permitted us to identify a width equal to 169.3 mm. This measurement was brought to print #2 corresponding to exactly the same segment measured under illuminated conditions (visible also in the image taken in the dark), allowing us to resize the image and permitting the subsequent measurements.”
53. The camera should be fixed on a tripod so that the lens is perpendicular to the print, so that the relative distances are not altered.
54. From Rinaldo-Boemia’s analysis or the print #2 of 18 Dec 2007, size of the shorter side of the tile indicated as 169.3 mm by the Scientific Police.
55. About the resizing of Rinaldo-Boemia’s analysis. “Once the second luminol-positive print was resized it was measured.
56. Our measurements. The size of the tiles which are used in flooring (in all environments) are 337.76142 x 163.80602 mm in our measurements. In particular, the measurement of 163.80602 that we measured differs significantly from that measured by the Scientific Police (169.3), who define this measurement as the width.
57. During the hearing, Dr. Rinaldi admitted that there was a discrepancy between the measurements taken of the tiles, stating that the reason was due to the effect of parallax which he tried to overcome by deforming the images. The measurements obtained with this method are closer to those that we found, however the measurements taken and shown by the Scientific Police are always based on the original (erroneous) parameters. Dr. Rinaldi declared that he took this difference into account, however without explaining which criteria or mathematical calculation was used.
58. Our calculation of the measurements.
59. There is a disagreement between our measurements and those of the Scientific Police in nearly all cases.
60. Calculation of the length of the shoe from the measurements of the foot. European system: shoe size = (length of shoe in cm x 3 / 2) + 3. In the specific case: (21.5 x 3 / 2) + 3 = 35.25. Allowing for 1cm of tolerance (the space between foot and the shoe) it must be concluded that the size corresponds to a 36 or 37. Therefore it’s a small foot, probably female.
61. Comparison of the print collected and Sollecito’s when correctly proportioned. Sollecito’s foot is longer by more than 3 cm!!!
62. Method of “color substitution” to better highlight the characteristics of the print. The prints left by the toes are more visible.
63. Application of the grid system as suggested by Robbins. The red spots indicate obvious points of difference.
64. Conclusions: Neither of the two prints collected can be considered as even being “compatible” with Raffaele Sollecito, rather it should be certainly excluded that these prints were left by him.
65. In any case: It is always preferable to use the term “non attributability” to the general concept of “compatibility” or, worse, to “probable identity” which, having too many limitations and not being defined on a solid scientific basis, can be utilized erroneously.
66. Additional considerations and insights.
67. 1st problem: The basic competencies required for the analysis of foot prints are: Anatomy, Anthropology, Orthopedics, forensic pathology, informatics, biometrics, computerized graphics systems, photography, criminology.
68. 2nd problem (a): homogeneity of the samples. Controlled deposits of drops of fresh blood and gloved thumbprints on bathmat, photocopy paper, laboratory absorbent paper, tile. This testing was not carried out by the Scientific Police.
69. 2nd problem (b): It’s evident that in like conditions the type of surface conditions the characteristic of the trace.
70. 3rd problem: Preliminary study of the feet not carried out by the Scientific Police for Morphological and anatomical characteristics, static and dynamic tests, x-ray exams. According to Robbins et al, “It is not possible to analyze a footprint without having any anatomical knowledge of the structure of a foot”.
71. 4th problem (a): Method of collecting the footprints of the defendants. In the case in question the prints left by the feet of the defendants were taken using a method appropriate for other types of investigation; in any case no print was taken “dynamically”, i.e. through a prolonged walk of at least 6 meters, as is widely recommended in literature: it does not appear that this was done in the case in question.
72. 4th problem (b): Literature recommends the use of a soluble paint in water which has an ideal degree of viscosity for the collection of footprints. This was not done by the Scientific Police. Instead it is not recommended to use the method of “imprinting” in order to obtain a footprint. In the example the prints are in fact too dense for the requirement.
73. 4th problem (c): During the collection of the defendant’s footprints for analysis it is recommended to use a method to get their attention so as to render their walking as natural as possible. This was not done by the Scientific Police.
74. 5th problem: The Scientific Police did not carry out a preliminary evaluation of the prints.
75. 6th problem: Direct examination of the samples. The Scientific Police did not carry out an evaluation of: the composition of the material, its characteristics, permeability of the warp and weft, observations with alternative lighting (Crimescope), chromatic reactions with various illuminations. Dr. Rinaldi declared to have only examined photographs.
76. 7th problem: Choice of system of measurement. The Scientific Police did not indicate their method of measurement.
77. 8th problem: Certainty of the reference points for the measurements. In the photographs of the footprints highlighted by luminol taken by the Scientific Police they did not use fluorescent metric tapes which would have provided more reliable references.
78. 9th problem: Applicability of statistical data. Statistical data, formulas for the calculation of standard deviation, application of parameters for the predictions of the height and weight, etc, CANNOT AND MUST NOT be utilized if used in analyzing prints of diverse ethnic groups or of populations not preliminarily studied. In the case in question they try to apply these principles to an Ivorian, an American and an Italian!!!
79. Appendix: Vinci’s Experience in working for the prosecutions of tribunals of Puglia.
80. etc.. not translated

 

Share Button