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.

Amityville Horror Copy-Cat Killing

 

 

“High Hopes” were dashed this month for a Brazilian Family as their son killed them in their sleep. Marcelo Pesseghini [age 13] allegedly shot and killed his mother, father, grandmother, and great aunt in the middle of the night then casually went to school the next morning, returned home, and shot himself dead in the head.

 

The killings are believed to be a chilling re-enactment of the Amityville family massacre whereby Ronald DeFeo Jr., shot and killed his parents, two brothers, and two sisters in their beds at their home in Amityville, Long Island, New York back in 1974. One of Marcelo’s friends said that “He [Marcelo] planned to kill his parents during the night so that no-one would notice then escape in the parents’ car and live in an abandoned place.” The friend also claimed that Marcelo planned to be a “hit man” when he grew up.

Marcelo allegedly shot all four of his victims in the head with a .40 caliber pistol at the family home in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Police later recovered a .32 caliber revolver inside a backpack that Marcelo had taken to school. CCTV footage shows Marcelo casually walking to and from his school in the northern part of the capital after the murders.

In a recent press conference Itagiba Franco, from the Sao Paulo police homicide department, reported: “Everything seems to indicate that Marcelo killed his parents and relatives.” Sao Paulo police commander, Benedito Roberto Meira, said there was no sign of a break-in at the house and ruled out “an act of revenge by a criminal group” against the teenager’s family.

Still, there are some that believe that Marcelo is innocent of the crime. Since the killings several Facebook pages have sprung up proclaiming his innocence. One Facebook page actually has more than 26,000 "likes" currently. Others say that the killings may have come from Brazilian police officers, who were allegedly being investigated for some shady actions. It was reported that Marcelo’s mother had previously provided useful information in an inquiry into police officers suspected in a series of ATM robberies. That and the fact that gangs continue to target police officers in the area continue to fuel suspicions. More than 70 Sao Paulo police officers were killed by gang members last year. Both parents were police officers.  

Marcelo had posted a picture of the infamous Amityville “Ghost Boy” picture on his Facebook page last December. The Amityville Ghost Boy picture emerged two years after the Lutz family fled the house, claiming that it was haunted (which “The Amityville Horror” book and movie were based on). The picture is said to show the ghost of the youngest victim of the DeFeo massacre.

Family members killed:

• Luis Pesseghini (father) - 40-year-old police sergeant [found dead in bed]
• Andreia Pesseghini (mother) – 30-year-old military police officer for 16 years [found on her knees dead in the bedroom]
• Benedita de Oliveira Bovo (grandmother), 65-years-old [found dead in bed]
• Bernadete Oliveira da Silva (great aunt), 55-years-old [found dead in bed]
  

Amanda Knox’s Final Conviction Appeal Just Around Corner

Not really breaking news or much of a shock, but just moments ago Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, told the Florence daily La Nazione that she will not be attending her conviction appeals hearings in Italy. The appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito against their convictions will begin on September 30, 2013, and will take place in Florence.
 

Knox will be up against a whole new Italian authoritative regime when her appeals begin. In September Florence’s current chief prosecutor, Giuseppe Quattrocchi, will retire and Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Dr. Armando Spataro, is expected to take his place. Dr. Spataro is known to be one of the toughest prosecutors in Italy. Italy also has a new attorney general for Tuscany, Dr Tindari Baglione, who is expected to select the prosecutors for the appeal soon. 

Italian law permits Knox not to attend the appeal, where she will instead be represented by her lawyers. According to Mr. Ghirga, Knox “is not trying to run away from anything; she just doesn’t understand why a retrial is necessary.” So, by that logic: because Knox doesn’t understand why a retrial is necessary (even though it’s common practice in Italy for such a thing) she believes she should not attend because they have not proven to her why this is even necessary. Amanda Knox’s logic is never short on entertainment value. 

This past Sunday CNN featured the Amanda Knox story on their “Crimes of the Century” series; and once again CNN outdid itself by actually topping its previous record of reporting half-truths and outright errors associated with this story. They featured a host of pro-Knox-hacks, painted Knox as a poor girl who continues to be persecuted by evil autocrats tied to a medieval court system, and of course they made several references to the Knox-o-holics' "Darth Vader," Guiliano Mignini.

Trial Date Set for Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius was indicted today for the Valentine’s Day murder of his then girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. Among other things, the indictment reads, “The accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person.” The double-amputee Olympian, a.k.a. the Blade Runner, was charged with planning and premeditating Reeva’s murder, which comes with a mandatory sentence of life behind bars.

Pistorius’ trial was set announced today to begin on March 3, 2014. The entire trial, however, could take place in several different phases, likely lasting a year or more because of potential motions and postponements along the way. A list of more than 100 state-witnesses was listed in the indictment. Pistorious’ legal team is yet to release their witness list.

Pistorius also was indicted for allegedly violating South Africa’s firearms-control act. In South Africa, people can possess ammunition only if they are licensed to own a gun, and their ammunition must be specific to that weapon. Pistorius claimed that he stored the ammunition for a gun that his father owns.

Pistorius continues to maintain his innocence; he claims he mistook Reeva for a burglar.

Adding to the misery for the Steenkamp family, Reeva would have celebrated her 30^th birthday today.

 

One of Sweden’s Most Notorious “Serial Killers” About to be Released!

 

Once considered Sweden’s worst serial killer, 63-year-old Sture Bergwall’s (a.k.a. Thomas Quick) last of 8 murder convictions was overturned today after he withdrew his confessions.

Bergwall confessed to more than 30 murders over the past three decades, but was convicted of only 8 of them. He later said, however, that he had lied to investigators because he craved attention and was heavily medicated. Retrials were ordered for all 8 cases, but prosecutors said that without the confessions they didn’t have enough evidence to go back to court. Today they dropped the final case, which involved the death of a 15-year-old boy who had disappeared in northern Sweden in 1976.

Bergwall was convicted of the boy’s murder in 1994 even though there was no technical evidence linking him to the crime, and the cause of death could not be established. In what will surely come to be known as Sweden’s greatest miscarriage of justice of the modern era; Attorney General, Anders Perklev, told reporters in Stockholm that the debacle “has to be considered as a big failure for the justice system.” Bergwall will undergo psychiatric evaluation to determine his release date from the secure mental health unit where he has been held since 1991.

Shootout in Hackensack, NJ Leaves Man in Critical Condition

It all started last night at around 1:00a.m., when Hackensack, NJ Police Department received a call that there was an armed man in the Railroad Avenue and Newman Street housing project. Sgt. James Dalton and Officer Franklin Bay, who were patrolling on foot, responded. The suspect, identified as Robert Leonardis, 22 (from Hackensack), was confronted by the officers at the corner of the two streets, and a foot-chase ensued. Two additional officers arrived as Leonardis fled the scene. That’s when Leonardis opened fire on one of the patrol cars, striking the hood and windshield that Officer Joseph Ayoubi was driving, which went through the windshield, narrowly missing Officer Ayoubi. Officer Ayoubi slammed on his breaks, which caused Officer Brett McCarthy, was driving closely behind, to slam into the back of Ayoubi’s vehicle. 

The officers returned fire and struck Leonardis multiple times, dropping him at the corner of First and Sussex streets, where he was apprehended. Officer Ayoubi suffered a facial injury, started bleeding, and believed he had been shot due to the impact he had felt. However, it was determined the injury was a result of a piece of windshield and not from a bullet. No officers were hit, and they were treated and released with minor injuries. Leonardis was taken to Hackensack University Medical Center where he underwent surgery and remains in critical condition. 

                                            See Raw Police Footage at the Scene (below)