Knox & Sollecito: A Closer Look at the Footprint Evidence

If you have listen to anything from the American media about the Amanda Knox case you would likely believe that there was no physical evidence at the crime scene linking Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, with just a simple cursory review of some of the official sources it is easy to see that there is actually an abundance of physical evidence against the two convicts. Perhaps the best place to start is Judge Massei’s Report on the conviction of Knox and Kercher. Furthermore, it is imperative to read the Italian Supreme Court’s Reasoningon the case. Aside from the obvious four spots of blood found at the cottage (3 spots in the bathroom and one in Filomena’s room) mixed with Knox and Kercher’s DNA, there are also several pieces of convincing footprint evidence that was used to help convict the three accused, which includes Rudy Guede. Putting the plethora of circumstantial evidence and the other physical evidence aside and simply focusing on the footprint evidence gives us a very clear picture of exactly what occurred that fateful night.

Luminol (3-aminophthalic hydrazide) is a chemical that reacts with the microscopic particles of iron found in hemoglobin, causing an organic peroxide reaction. If blood is present, its oxidized state is expressed by a chemoluminescent burst, i.e. the sample glows with a bluish color in the dark. This chemical was used in this case to enhance several footprints found at the crime scene to have been cleaned, most likely by the perpetrators.

The picture above provides a very striking visual of what is about to be explained. For the purposes of this exercise I will be using my own labeling system to detail each footprint. Please refer to the picture above for reference sake. Before doing the analysis, it is important to note the size of each foot of each suspect. In doing so, we see the disparity among the participants that shows the unlikelihood of mistaking the identities. The following footprint evidence is taken from the Massei Report (pages 347-349).

Amanda Knox          –     6.5W  (US)
Meredith Kercher     –     8W     (US)  

Raffaele Sollecito     –     8.5M  (US)

Rudy Guede             –     12M    (US)
 

FP1 – This print was located in the bedroom of Amanda Knox, identified as a right barefoot print, which was found to be compatible with Amanda Knox’s right foot and it also included Amanda Knox’s DNA.

FP2 – This print was located in the corridor in the direction facing the exit, right next to Rudy Guede’s second shoe print, facing in the same direction. Being placed on a Robbins grid the investigators were able to get measurements for the big toe, both width and length for the metatarsus, and a width measurement for the heel. The bloody bare footprint was determined to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot.

FP3– This barefoot print was located in the corridor directly in front of the door to Meredith Kercher’s room and pointing towards the entrance as if entering the room. The measurements were found to be compatible with Amanda Knox’s Right foot.

FP4– The notorious bloody barefoot print found on the bathmat that was normally located in the bathroom shared by Knox and Kercher, but which was found in Amanda Knox’s room. This print was compatible with the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito.

 

FP5– For the purposes and practicality of this exercise, all of the footprints identified as Rudy Guede’s will be labeled under FP5. The court found that there was no reason or evidence to believe that Guede removed his shoes at any point. They furthered determined that "…it was his [Rudy Guede’s] shoe prints in the victim’s blood that were left on the floor of the house, in a path leading away from the victim ʹ s room and toward the door exiting the house, a door that had been pulled [shut] behind him” (SC Ruling, pg. 6). As indicated in the picture above, Guede’s bloody shoe prints lead directly from Kercher’s room to and out the front door of the cottage.

FP6 – “Following the procedure of luminol enhancement, it was shown that Knox, her feet stained with the victim’s blood, went into Romanelli’s room… leaving footprints revealed by luminol, some of which were mixed, i.e., constituted from biological traces of both Knox and Kercher” (pg. 11, SC Ruling). This, along with a multitude of other factors, lends itself to the theory that Knox was a major part of the staged break-in in Filomena Romanelli’s room.

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (SC) reasoned that Rudy Guede could not have killed Meredith Kercher by himself, based on the evidence; they outright reject the “lone wolf” theory. The SC specifically directs the appeals court to consider prior (and now definitive) findings in the Rudy Guede decision that there were multiple attackers and that the break-in was staged. This ruling stacks the deck against Knox and Sollecito in a big way! The SC also makes clear its belief that the footprints attributed to Knox, which contained both Knox and Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. They also affirm that they found there was no evidence that contamination occurred.

The upcoming hearing date begins on September 30, followed by October 4, 22, 23; November 6, 7, & 26 (2013). The presiding Judge will be Alessandro Nencini, president of the court’s second chamber, while the lateral judge is expected to be Magistrate Cicheria. A judgment is expected to be heard by the end of the year.

 

Roe v Wade: The Most Popular Supreme Court Case?

Perhaps one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases ever, if not outright the most controversial, is Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). It is certainly the most popular Supreme Court case of all time. It all started when Jane Roe, a.k.a. Norma McCorvey, a single mother of two in Dallas, Texas, got pregnant for a third time. Feeling that she could not financially support a third child, twenty-one-year old Jane Roe filed a lawsuit. At that time the Texas law on abortion was severely restrictive, basically stating that a woman could only get a “legal” abortion if the mother’s life was threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy. The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas.

The Burger Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Roe, using the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (particularly the word “liberty” therein) to strike down the Texas law. Justice Harry Blackburn wrote for the court, explaining that the Due Process Clause protects a woman’s “liberty” from state interference, and the word “liberty” includes a woman’s personal, qualified right to have an abortion. The key to the ruling, according to the court, was that the woman did not have an unfettered right to have an abortion. Justice Blackburn divided pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first, a woman has an unqualified right to an abortion; in the second, the state can regulate abortions in “ways that are reasonable related to maternal health;” and in the third, the state can regulate and even prohibit abortions.

Justices Byron R. White and William Rehnquist both wrote emphatic dissents, primarily stating that they found no “language” or “history” of the Constitution to support the Court’s decision. The true controversy of this case is the fact that incorporates many different facets, and that it is not just a matter of words in the Constitution. Dissenters of the ruling generally point to two things: no Constitutional text to support the decision and that life begins at fertilization, or conception (pro-lifers), and should therefore be protected under the Constitution. The second point is usually the one that is the most debated between the pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Pro-choicers also point to gender discrimination, and the fact that this is primarily a woman’s issue but has pretty much been decided by men. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the case could also be won, as this protects against gender discrimination. In fact, the Roe decision was also an attempt by the Burger Court to respond to an important emerging constituency: the Organized Women’s Movement.

Roe v. Wade not only established a fundamental constitutional right to abortion, but it also sparked a continuing controversy over the role of the court in deciding the issue. Planned Parenthood of Southern PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), is another example of the court’s longstanding issue with abortion. Casey was a Pennsylvania law that required women to wait twenty-four hours for an abortion; the twenty-four hour period began after consulting with a doctor. The law also required that minors have the consent of at least one parent. Other requirements also applied, as well as another law aimed at restricting abortion called the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. With then President George H. W. Bush and other Republicans calling for Roe to be overturned, the Court surprised many observers with the Planned Parenthooddecision. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Court upheld many aspects of Pennsylvania law dealing with abortion; however, they not only did not overturn the Roe decision, they invalidated a provision in the Casey law stating that required a woman to tell her husband before getting an abortion. The majority held that the decision in Roehad “established a rule of law and a component of liberty that they could not renounce.”

Majority voters, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter, both were on the fence according to whether or not to overturn the Roedecision or not. Both had been appointed to the bench by President Ronald Regan in hopes that they would overturn Roe, but they both conceded that overturning Roewould politicize the court and lead to questioning of the court’s legitimacy. Bonnie Scott, lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in regard to the Planned Parenthood decision of that the Supreme Court is “no longer striking down laws just because they’re sort of discrimination against abortion; you have to show that these laws impose an undue burden on women.”

Since the Roe decision, the Court made several rulings in other cases on abortion that many would think would ultimately lead to them eventually overturning Roe. In Maher v. Roe (1977), the Court ruled that the states were not required to fund abortions for indigent women; in Harris v. McRae (1980), the Court ruled that Congress did not violate the Constitution when it prohibited the use of non-therapeutic abortions; and a variety of other cases (i.e. *Akron v. Akron Center for Reproduction, 1983; *Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 1986) also added a variety of regulations that made it more difficult to have an abortion. So, the powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution have shifted and vacillated on this issue several times throughout the years, even before Roe. This debate will certainly continue as Republicans continue to try and take the White House. Many Republicans, namely those running for the GOP Presidential nomination (during debates), have publically stated if given the opportunity they will seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.