Murder in Perugia

This is an updated presentation based on the photos which appear in the 14 May 2008 article in La Nazione concerning the barefoot footprints pressed in blood which were found in the cottage in Perugia. Only visible under fluorescent light and after being treated with luminol, they should not be confused with the Nike shoeprints which were visible under natural light. Additional photos provided by the Tgcom news site have permitted us to extend the number of footprints to six, and to improve and complete our initial analysis of them. The situations presented here are related to ideas or event relationships which have arisen from the excellent multi-point-of-view, multi-timezone, and multi-cultural discussion resulting from Steve Huff’s True Crime Weblog on this tragedy: http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums. org/the-murder-of-meredith-kercher-f1.html (While you’re at it, visit Steve’s current blog, published by Village Voice Media: http://www. truecrimereport.com/) 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 butal senseless murder that the victim experienced, nor to reduce her memory. (Since the victim has no means to reply to any comments herein or scenarios described in other presentations, and the repeated use of her name in this context would only further hurt anyone close to her, I refer to her simply as “the victim”.) 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 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. - Kermit (15 September 2008) email: krmt123@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION After their publication in La Nazione and on TGCOM, we have various images of 6 footprints (5 made visible with luminol and 1 visible print on the bathmat) from the cottage in Perugia. If some of the prints are Rudy’s, they are simply additional evidence against him. If some the prints are Amanda’s, they could be explained by saying that they were made when she had her alleged shower in the morning of 2 November 2007. If some of the prints are the victim’s, they would be part of some struggle before she was locked behind her door and mercilessly abandoned to die. My objective in this presentation is to look at the footprints and detect if any of them could be from feet which were not Rudy’s, Amanda’s or the victim’s size. Why am I interested? There is much talk in certain quarters of the “Lone Wolf” theory. Like any theory it should be studied and taken seriously. (Although its name is amusing for me: zealous supporters of this theory should be aware that wolves are actually quite social animals - amongst themselves - and go about their work often under the orders of the alpha female of the pack.) If there are footprints which aren’t Rudy’s or Amanda’s or the victim’s size, then something is wrong with the Lone Wolf theory. Someone else was there. My measurements can not pretend to be exact. Different factors - principally perspective and camera optics - can modify them. However, those distortions affect as well the surrounding reference points (the tiles on the floor) which I use to adjust my “ruler” before making any measurement. I’ll leave it to your own eyes to appreciate the estimations of foot size. There was an indirect confirmation of what this presentation seeks to find, in a recent La Nazione article. The article lists 23 items of forensic evidence against the 3 suspects. Two of the items associated with Raffaele are a “compatible” luminol footprint in the hallway, and the “compatible” visible bloody footprint on the bathmat. If they are only compatible, they may not be his. But they definitely do belong to another wolf in the pack.

Our starting point goes back to 14 May 2008. In this very interesting La Nazione article, we saw three photos with a tale to tell ...

It’s only after looking closely at the middle and right photos, that you realise that they are in fact of the same footprints. The only difference is that they are taken under different lighting conditions (more or less natural or fluorescent light to highlight the luminol marker substance which binds to residual amounts of blood).

From there, the next logical step is to combine the images and try to measure and compare the luminol footprints!! In total, we have 6 different prints, so let’s get to work.

R A D I A T O R

First of all, if the floortiles will form the grid we use to measure the footprints, we have to determine their dimension. We know that all of the North Wing of the cottage has the same sized tiles.

R

AD I A T O R

R A D I A T O R

First of all, if the floortiles will form the grid we use to measure the footprints, we have to determine their dimension. We know that all of the North Wing of the cottage has the same sized tiles. If we go into the victim’s room, we find the measuring scale we’re looking for, at ILE marker “C”.

To establish our precision measuring instrument () we have an excellent basis in ILE marker “C” for one of the visible shoeprints in the victim’s room. (from Daily Mail)

All we have to do is to rotate it and extend it proportionally, in order to obtain a measuring ruler in centimeters. We see that the floortiles used in the north wing of the cottage are 16 cm. in width.(This corrects an earlier measure I had made of 15 centimetres before the TGCOM photos were available in the summer of 2008).

Let’s confirm that measurement of tile width as 16 cm. Between footprints A y B, there is a fuzzy ILE measuring ruler. If we sharpen up its units and extend it proportionally, we can again measure tile width as 16 cm.

As a third check of tile width, we have ILE marker 6 in the TGCOM bathroom photo. Without modifying its proportionality, we can confirm the tile width as 16 cm.

We’ll be measuring in centimetres, and later we’ll try an exercise in contrasting our measurements with the measurements made by Italian investigators of the suspects’ and the victim’s size of foot. The suspects’ feet were measured in surprise visits to Capanne (Amanda and Rudy) and Terni (Raffaele) prisons on 12 May 2008. The Italian investigators measured in European foot/shoe sizes. The following measurements were reported in the press: Amanda: Eurosize 37 Raffaele: Eurosize 42 Rudy: Eurosize 46 From the autopsy, the victim’s feet were measured at Eurosize 38.5. While there are different foot measuring scales (such as the “French Scale” - based on “French Points” - which in theory is a European-wide system), I have used common sense to base this presentation on standard foot sizing used for the shoes we buy in stores in Europe. European readers will recognise immediately size 46 as being a tall person’s large foot, size 42 as being an “average” sized man’s foot, size 38.5 as being an “average” woman’s size and size 37 as being a small woman’s size. Well before the police measurements in prison, when Raffaele’s lawyers were disputing the Nike print earlier this year, they showed size 42 Nike sports shoes on the Matrix TV show, that is the same size 42 shoe that anybody in continental Europe would find in a shoe store.

Here’s a good conversion chart between centimetres and other international foot sizing schemes. It is accurate for my feet and for others I have tested.

A useful footsize calculator (from centimetres) is provided on This Site .

Let’s set up a summary table of shoe sizes which we’ll return to later:
Fo ce otle nti ng me th tre in s
28,8 approx. 28,4 approx 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

47

Rudy

46 45 44 43

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

Fo

ot

siz e

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

Okay, the preliminaries are over. Let’s start measuring the barefoot footprints made in blood.

Footprints “A y B”

After the La Nazione photos of barefoot footprints made in blood, then cleaned and made visible with Luminol, we have seen additional images from TGCOM. We can layer them in all together, not only to understand the footprints themselves, but also to understand the surrounding area

Before we start with measurements, let’s take a look at this square metre of hallway: This appears to be the shadow of an object This looks like a folded, at an angle (I would have said an open knitted sweater door, but none really fit the angle). Maybe a box or a book on the floor, or ILE marker

1
The area is 4 tile lengths wide, coinciding with the North Wing corridor

2

3
This almost looks like a fingernail and 2 bent fingers (probably not, due to their size)

4

Okay, it’s time to measure. Let’s draw the floortile grid clearly. Now we calibrate the measuring ruler at 16 cm. per floortile (by width).

Let’s store the ruler on the side for a moment, and delimit Footprint “A”
(I now only see one version of Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes, as that would correspond to a child’s foot)

FOOTPRINT “A”

Now let’s measure the distance between the marks with the ruler

FOOTPRINT “A”

Let’s storemore closely thethe measurement, we can determine it to “A” 25.3 cm. If we look the ruler on at side for a moment, and delimit Footprint be
(Ipersonally think that’s a fairly accurate measurement. Of course, a millimetre here or I now only see one version of Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes; that would correspond to a child’s foot)

there could make a difference, so let’s do an exercise of checking the proportionality and principal characteristics of the footprint.

25.3 cm
24 cm 18 cm 12 cm 6 cm

Let’s store the ruler on the side for a moment, and delimit Footprint “A”
(I now only see like the following may arise:excluding from consideration a smaller one Questions one version of Footprint “A”, where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes; that would correspond to a child’s foot)

What if this is not the end of the heel, but rather the extended mark of a “rolling” heel, made while walking?

How do we know that the big toe doesn’t end here … … or here ?

Let’sway tothe ruler onmethod and assumptions about where the big toe and the heel The store check our the side for a moment, and delimit Footprint “A” reach, only see one “average” Footprint “A”, excluding from the main characteristics. (I now is to find an version of real footprint and compare consideration a smaller one where the balls of the foot areLet’s assume thatthat would correspond tothis Anonymous I found this one on Internet. seen as the toes; the person who made a child’s foot) Internet Footprint (AIF) had such an “average” foot with “average” proportions. Well, I think our assumptions are pretty good. The round of the heel in the Luminol footprint does not look like it comes from rolling the foot while walking … … both the arch and external sides of the foot look about where they should be … … and most importantly, the big toe reaches exactly to where we thought it would. The only “anomaly” are the missing smaller toes, which we can assume is either because they weren’t soaked in blood, or because that part of the footprint was better cleaned than the rest. However, the overall proportionality appears correct.

Let’s store measurement atside for a moment, and delimit Footprint “A”footprint with a So, with a the ruler on the 25.3 cm, we can proceed to associate the foot-size. see one version of Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one (I now only
where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes; that would correspond to a child’s foot)
The victim’s size 38.5 foot equates to 24.8 cm. This is slightly less than our physical measurement of 25.3 cm. This footprint could be the victim’s size. However, my bet is that it is not, given that her foot size is slightly smaller than the footprint perspective favours real sizes slightly larger than what we measure.

in cm .

Footprint A
siz e ng th

Rudy’s large size 46 foot equates to about 28.4 cm. Footprint “A” is clearly not Rudy’s size.

Fo

Fo

Fo

otp r

otl e

ot

int A

24 cm 24 cm 18 cm 18 cm

47

c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

Rudy

46 45 44 43

12 cm 12 cm

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

+

6 cm 6 cm

Raffaele’s size 42 foot equates to 26 cm. This is slightly more than our physical measurement of 25.3 cm. This footprint is a good candidate for being Raffaele’s size. First of all, the footprint may not take into account small characteristics like a slightly overhanging toe or heel which make make the footprint slightly shorter (millimetres) than the real foot. Secondly, the perspective of the photos favours a slightly longer measurement rather than the opposite (that requires a long explanation, which I’ll spare you). Amanda’s size 37 foot equates to 23.8 cm. Footprint “A” is clearly not Amanda’s size.

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

-

Now let’s move on to Footprint “B”
Before anything else, let’s recalibrate our ruler. Footprint B is higher in the image than Footprint A, and that change in perspective is enough to make us have to adjust the ruler by perhaps a few millimetres. It doesn’t change radically our measurements, but may nudge our interpretation one way or another. Click while watching the ruler …

FOOTPRINT “B”

Since both Footprint A and Footprint B straddle a tile-width, with a little behind the back line (their heels) and a little in front of the front line (their toes), I’m not too concerned about the overall effects of perspective on the measurements we make. (As mentioned in the comments made with Footprint A, if anything, perspective in the case of A and B could slightly lengthen our measurements.)

Armed with our freshly calibrated ruler, now let’s mark the limits of Footprint “B” Our task is more difficult in this case, as Footprint B at first glance only has a clearly defined heel. FOOTPRINT “B”

?

Let’s of all, the ruler on the side for a moment, about the orientation “A” basic First store let’s zoom in, and make a decision and delimit Footprint and characteristics one version of Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one (I now only see of Footprint “B”. I hope you will agree that we can discard considering this astheleft foot, thespite arethe initialthe toes; that would correspond to a child’s foot) where a balls of in foot of seen as tendency to see a big and second toe. I don’t think those two long marks are toes, given the obvious form of the arch, the balls of the feet, the toes, the space between the toes and the balls of the feet and the general orientation of the foot.

If you insist on measuring this as a left foot, you get 29.8 cm., which is an offthe-scale nearly Yeti size 50 or so. In addition, it simply doesn’t look like a left foot.

Is this a big toe?

Is this a second toe?

?

Let’s store the right foot, we have the moment, and delimit Footprint “A” So, we have a ruler on the side for a heel mark, and we have identified general
characteristics one version of Let’s return to our Anonymous Internet Footprint (AIF) to (I now only seeof the footprint. Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one set where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes; that would correspond to a child’s foot)the proportional measuring points. (I should mention that when I use and adjust the size of AIF at any point in this presentation, I do not change its aspect ratio - the relationship between height and width) First of all, let’s just set the AIF down on the footprint, pushing it up against the heel mark … Does it look right? Not really. The toes don’t coincide, the ball of the foot behind the big toe isn’t quite right … After adjusting the size again, I think we’re pretty close to the size of the foot which made this print. The heel is right, the left and right sides are right, the toes are right, the balls of the foot are right, the space between the toes and the balls of the foot is right. Let’s proceed to mark the big toe. Oops, I guess I tried to adjust the size too much. At least we see that the “front line” of luminol does not indicate where the toes are, but rather the balls of the foot.

?

Let’s we apply the ruler, and side for aamoment, length of Footprint “B” “A” Now store the ruler on the measure physical and delimit Footprint at 24.6 cm. What
size foot could one made that foot print? (I now only seehave version of Footprint “A”, excluding from consideration a smaller one where the balls of the foot are seen as the toes; that would correspond to a Raffaele’sfoot)sizes Rudy’s and child’s feet
equate to 28.4 and 26 cm., respectively. Footprint “B” is clearly neither Rudy’s nor Raffaele’s size. The victim’s foot size equates to 24.8 cm. This is almost the same as our measurement. Footprint “B” looks like it is the victim’s size, according to this scale. Amanda’s foot size equates to 23.8 cm. I don’t believe this is Amanda’s size of footprint, although it is a possibility.

Footprint B
siz e in cm rin . tB ng th

24 cm

otl e

Fo ot

Fo

Fo otp

18 cm

47

c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

Rudy

12 cm

46 45 44 43

6 cm

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

Footprint “C”

Footprint “C” demonstrates the wealth of information stored in digital images. From the published image we can adjust contrasts, colours, and intensities, to view much more visual information ….

Now we can draw the gridlines which form the pattern of floortiles ….

… and we can calibrate the ruler. First by tile width ….

24 c

m 18 c m

12 c

m

6 cm

… let’s also check the half tile length, confirming that a tile has 2 x 1 dimensions

24

cm

18 c 12

m

cm

6c

m

We’ll store the ruler on the side until we figure out the dimensions of the footprint. Let’s pull out the AIF again …

24 cm

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

Let’s rotate the AIF Outline, and adjust it’s size (but not its aspect ratio) until we get a form which fits in with the front part of the footprint which is visible thanks to luminol.

24 cm

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

We mark the front and back extremes of the footprint … … and we measure.

24 cm

18 cm

t

12 cm

Wait! Before we measure, let’s consider a potential problem: I’ve already said that perspective can distort measurements … in particular measurements which go off into the distance. Just one tile of distance can put off our accuracy. Not by much (millimetres) but “not much” can impact in our interpretation of the measurements. What should we do? Answer: Nothing. The potential distortion caused by using a “flat” footprint outline (ie. an overhead image without perspective) is compensated by the use of a ruler which is also “flat”, with no perspective.

6 cm

We mark the front and back extremes of the footprint … I read 23.3 cm. … and we measure. 24

cm

18 12 6

cm

cm

cm

t

We mark the front and back extremes of the footprint … Click to make some space. 24 … and we measure.

cm

18 12 6

cm

cm

24 18

cm

cm

t
12 6 cm

cm

cm

Marked at 23.3 cm., Footprint “C” is very close to Amanda’s size 37 foot, which equates to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to a footlength of 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to a footlength of 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to a footlength of about 28.4 cm.

24 18

cm

t
12 6 cm

cm

cm

Marked at 23.3 cm., Footprint “C” is very close to Amanda’s size 37 foot, which equates to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to a footlength of 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to a footlength of 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to a footlength of about 28.4 cm.

t

Amanda’s foot size is a close match to Footprint “C”.

Marked at 23.3 cm., Footprint “C” is very close to Amanda’s size 37 foot, which equates to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to a footlength of 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to a footlength of 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to a footlength of about 28.4 cm.

t
The victim’s foot size does not fit well. Amanda’s foot size is a close match to Footprint “C”.

Marked at 23.3 cm., Footprint “C” is very close to Amanda’s size 37 foot, which equates to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to a footlength of 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to a footlength of 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to a footlength of about 28.4 cm.
Raffaele’s foot size does not fit well.

t

The victim’s foot size does not fit well. Amanda’s foot size is a close match to Footprint “C”.

Marked at 23.3 cm., Footprint “C” is very close to Amanda’s size 37 foot, which equates to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to a footlength of 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to a footlength of 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to a footlength of about 28.4 cm.
Rudy’s foot size does not fit well.

t

Raffaele’s foot size does not fit well.

The victim’s foot size does not fit well. Amanda’s foot size is a close match to Footprint “C”.

Let’s summarise the matching of Footprint “C” on our table.

otl en gth in Fo cm otp . rin tC

Footprint C
siz e

Rudy’s foot size does not fit well.

Fo ot

Fo

47

c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

t

Raffaele’s foot size does not fit well.

Rudy

46 45 44 43

The victim’s foot size does not fit well. Amanda’s foot size is a close match to Footprint “C”.

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

Footprint “D”

Like in the case of the previous footprint, Footprint “D” from the TGCOM collection again demonstrates the wealth of information stored in digital images. From the published image we can adjust contrasts, colours, and intensities, to view much more visual information ….

A forensic ruler

Floor-tile gridlines

We know the tile widths are 16 cm. since the start of this presentation, thanks to 3 reference measures (ILE marker “C” in the bedroom, the forensic ruler between footprints A and B, and ILE marker “6” in the bathroom). Here’s a fourth reference marker. I’ll apply the extended ruler used in another presentation to show the blade length of the Double DNA kitchen knife as being 17.5 cm. We adjust it until the black and white centimetre squares coincide.

Let’s draw the floor tile grid. Without changing the Double DNA knife ruler’s dimensions, we can line it up with the grid and confirm again the 16 cm. width. In any case, I prefer our more detailed C-marker.

24

cm

18

cm

12 c

m

6c

m

We are going to use the AIF again. But first, let’s make some space.

24 24 18 18 12 c 12 c 6c 6c m m m m cm cm

cm cm

We are going to use the AIF again. But first, let’s make some space. And now we store the calibrated ruler on the side.

24

cm

18

cm

12 c

m

6c

m

This is a tough one. Let’s put a semi-transparent AIF on top of the parts of the footprint which we can see. I’m more or less satisfied with this. (Later we’ll try stretching it). So, what’s the length?

24 cm

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

I read that as 26.3 cm. Is there an argument for a bigger or smaller foot?

24

cm

18

cm

12

cm

6

cm

26.3 cm. Let’s try placing a larger foot first:

There could be a case for a larger foot like this. However, my feeling is that this is a toe marked here …

26.3 cm. Now let’s try a smaller foot: 23.8 cm.

The ball of the foot behind the big toe of the reduced sized AIF covers an area beyond the limits of the luminol print (ie. the AIF is stretched too short) This reduced sized AIF does not cover this area of the arch of the foot either.

This reduced sized AIF does not cover different parts of the luminol print. The AIF toes are where the balls of the foot should be. The luminol toe (circled) is not covered nor even does the AIF get close to it.

So, let’s return to our 26.3 cm. Footprint “D”

24
Amanda’s size 37 foot would equate to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to 24.8 cm. Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to 28.4 cm.

cm

18

cm

12

cm
Rudy’s foot does not fit well.

6

cm
Raffaele’s foot is a very close fit.

The victim’s foot does not fit well.

Amanda’s foot does not fit well. (In the sake of honesty, I should say that this is the mark - 23.8 cm - which I used to size the AIF to a smaller size which was obviously incompatible with the luminol footprint.)

Let’s summarise the matching of Footprint “D”

24

cm

Footprint D
Fo otl en gth Fo in otp cm . rin tD siz e
12

18

cm

Fo ot

cm
Rudy’s foot does not fit well.

47

c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

Rudy

46 45 44 43

6

cm
Raffaele’s foot is a very close fit.

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

The victim’s foot does not fit well.

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

Amanda’s foot does not fit well. (In the sake of honesty, I should say that this is the mark - 23.8 cm - which I used to size the AIF to a smaller size which was obviously incompatible with the luminol footprint.)

Footprint “E”

Like in the case of the previous footprints, Footprint “E” from the TGCOM collection again demonstrates the wealth of information stored in digital images. From the published image we can adjust contrasts, colours, and intensities, to view much more visual information ….

Let’s keep shifting the hidden colours to see the tiles, but maintain the apparent foot outline. Once again let’s calibrate our ruler against the ILE ruler which is visible in the image ….

2

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

ILE Ruler

We draw the floor tile gridlines, and confirm the half-length of the floor tile at 16 cm….

cm 24

cm 18

12 cm

6c m

We’re lucky this time to have both a well defined heel and big toe - no need for the AIF!

Okay, just in case, we’ll apply the AIF. It seems to fit, more or less….

Raffaele’s size 42 foot would equate to 26 cm. Rudy’s size 46 foot would equate to 28.4 cm.

47

Fo

c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

12 cm

18 cm

24 cm

Raffaele

Victim Amanda
Footprint “E” is not Rudy’s size. The victim’s size is a possible fit.

Footprint “E” is not Raffaele’s size.

Amanda’s size is a very close fit.

6 cm

Rudy

46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39

38,5 38 37 36 35

Fo

siz e otl en gth Fo in cm otp . rin tE

Let’s measure with the ruler, and we get 24.1 cm. as the length of Footprint “E” Amanda’s size 37 foot would equate to 23.8 cm. The victim’s size 38.5 foot would equate to 24.8 cm. Footprint

E

ot

Footprint “F”

We already had a glimpse of Footprint “F” at the beginning of the presentation when we saw that it confirms a tile width of 16 cm.

24 cm

Let’s calibrate our ruler on this grid, at 16 cm. per tile width
18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

Now let’s store the calibrated ruler on the side, and make some space to work in.

24 cm

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

The big toe is rather clear. Let’s mark it and visualise the missing toes. We measured all of the other footprints, and then we compared them to the foot sizes of the suspects and the victim. We know from the press that the prosecution has evaluated footprint “F” as being compatible with Raffaele’s foot. So let’s visualise it initially on that basis. A size 42 foot equates to a foot length of 26 cm.

24 cm

18 cm

12 cm

6 cm

The big toe is rather clear. Let’s mark it and visualise the missing toes. We measured all of the other footprints, and then we compared them to the foot sizes of the suspects and the victim. We know from the press that the prosecution has evaluated footprint “F” as being compatible with Raffaele’s foot. So let’s visualise it initially on that basis. A size 42 foot equates to a foot length of 26 cm.
24 c m

18 c

m

12 c

m

6 cm

Okay, it’s marked. What do we do now? We apply the AIF!

Okay, it’s marked. What do we do now? We apply the AIF! Let’s layer the AIF behind the bathmat, and ask ourselves, does that composite footprint appear to have “average” proportions?

Let’s mark the other reference sizes that we have …

24 c

m

18 c

m

12 c

m

6 cm

Let’s mark the other reference sizes that we have … The adjusted AIF outline indicates Amanda’s size 37 (23.8 cm). On one hand it doesn’t seem to fill out the outer edge of Footprint F On the other hand, we know circumstantially that it’s not her footprint. No one thinks that she made it from 10 a.m. onwards on Nov. 2 having a shower (when she says she discovered it).

Let’s mark the other reference sizes that we have … The victim’s footprint size is indicated with the adjusted AIF size 38.5 (24.8 cm). There’s still a bit of lateral overflow from Footprint “F”, but we could consider it a possibility.

Let’s mark the other reference sizes that we have … The adjusted AIF outline indicates Rudy’s size 46 (28.4 cm). The problem here is the opposite: his footsize clearly exceeds the dimensions of Footprint “F”.

Okay, let’s summarise what we’ve seen on the table:

Fo
47

Rudy

46 45 44 43

Raffaele

42 41 40 39

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

ot siz e Fo otl en gth in Fo cm otp . rin tF
c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

Footprint F

We’ve spent alot of time analysing the footprints. Let’s summarise the results for each footprint: Rudy: Clearly, none of the barefoot footprints even come near his extremely large size 46.
th in Fo cm otp . rin Fo otp t A rin tB Fo otp rin tC Fo otp Fo rint otp D Fo rint E otp rin tF

CONCLUSIONES

The Victim: at least one footprint seems to be her size. Amanda: at last two of the footprints are compatible with her size 37 foot. Remember the objective I wrote in the Introduction to this presentation: If there are footprints which aren’t Rudy’s or Amanda’s or the victim’s size, then something is wrong with the Lone Wolf theory. Someone else was there. Raffaele: at last two of the footprints are compatible with his size 42 foot. That doesn’t mean they are his. But there was at least one other wolf in the cottage.

siz e ot Fo
47

Rudy

46 45 44 43

Raffaele

Fo
c. 28,8 c. 28,4 27,9 27,3 26,7 26 25,7 25,4 25,1 24,8 24,5 23,8 23,5 22,8

otl en g

42 41 40 39

+

Victim Amanda

38,5 38 37 36 35

-

EPILOGUE
Wolves spend time together in packs and live according to a social structure. Each one has a specific role in their attacks. They sometimes appear as tame as the domestic dog, but under certain biological conditions (their own hunger) or environmental conditions (group dynamics), they are savage killers. I don’t know who did what on the night of Nov. 1 in the cottage in Perugia, but there is more than enough forensic evidence, including the prosecution’s analysis of barefoot footprints in the north wing, to consider than there was more than one assailant. In addition to the forensic evidence, Sra. Nara, a neighbour, heard two persons running from the cottage, passersby heard noise from the garden after midnight (when Rudy was seen at the discotheque), and the utterly ridiculous “break-in” of Spiderman through Filomena’s window, in addition to many other elements of evidence, all point to a group attack. I think it’s reasonable to set aside the Lone Wolf theory, and to afford full believability to the Wolf Pack theory.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful