The last link above is the defence presentation.

It's only shoe prints though, they don't debunk the footprint measurements that I can see, at least not with any kind of visual presentation.

I guess that's why Friends of Amanda has to make up their own and shrink/expand the prints to try and fit with Guede.

Truthsayer proving definitively that the excel chart created by the guilters based on the measurements taken by the prosecution expert indeed reflects the measurements taken by the prosecution expert. A true revelation.

This is why you're losing the thread so badly.

I'm interested in the topic and trying to find information. You know, the kind of thing you do when you have an open mind. I asked for the defense's visual presentation so can I compare actual pictures with my own eyes and not have to trust anyone's word. I did this with the prosecution's visual presentation and the visual presentation with actual measurements overlaid is very compelling, so I'm trying to ascertain the other side.

The friends of Amanda reconstruction has no measurements and the sizes are changed, so that's worthless to find the best possible defense case. Unless it is the best possible defense, which is why it's doctored and there are no sizes/rulers overlaid?

If only the defense arguments were available somewhere other than the Friends of Amanda site.

Feel free to provide links to a legitimate source.

We all know that's not gonna happen.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Ra...ito_Appeal.pdf

There is nothing useful in the appeal factum.

So let me get this straight. You spend 430,000 words arguing all kinds of minutia defending Knox and saying there is no evidence against them. Then when someone is trying to ascertain the truth of a key piece of evidence, I get the following responses from each party:

- Henry links me to both prosecution and defense presentations
- You post vague obfuscatory text hinting that something exists but providing no link

Are you trying to lose this argument, or something? You're doing a great job.

I did my own transparencies and overlays from the trial exhibits and it's clear that Sollecito's foot is an excellent match, while Guede's isn't a credible match. While googling for the link you wouldn't provide, I also came across this which did a more thorough job than my own outlining:

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?p=95561 (scroll down)

In the images below, Guede's toe is a horrible match for the print, far too narrow, and the metatarsus is too large by quite a margin The are also no toe prints with Guede and his arch forms a broader uniform pattern that has trouble matching the bathmat:




Meanwhile the image is a good fit for Sollecito, with his smaller metatarsus, much larger toe, more graded arched, and very faint toe prints as opposed to the strong ones for Guede:



Given that the print has to be Guede or Sollecito, whose do you think it is?

Have a look at the thread for the outlining done on the bathmat and the high contrast image that more clearly shows the blood, especially to the left of the strong big toe print, which is critical here and establishes the width beyond all doubt.

The only place the images don't fit well is beneath the big toe, which is white in Sollecito's reference print, but that can be explained by the raised plushness of the bathmat beneath this area. You can also see a very faint imprint beneath the toe on his reference footprint indicating it's maybe a mm or two off printing; the raised bathmat would bring that out in full given the strength of the big toe print and lack of other toe prints, indicating the weight was on that side.

So I'll ask a third time: Out of all the millions of words written about this case, is there any analysis like the above that shows it could credibly match Guede's print and is unlikely to match Sollecito's? The below is all I can find and it's a joke compared to the above and fails to establish anything except that a measurement was incorrectly recorded by the prosecution on the image (it is correct in the table above however):

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

In other words the defense arguments aren't a good source for the defense arguments. Well said.

Truthsayer is looking for a detailed presentation of the argument so that he can assess the argument. You will never find that in an appeal factum. Feel free to prove me wrong -- what page should he be looking at?

The defense argument about the bathmat print is not that a measurement was improperly recorded on an image, Truthsayer. I'm not going to start arguing if you haven't even properly understood both arguments and made a determination, sorry.

Do you see why you keep losing these arguments. Instead of saying what the argument isn't why don't you state what it is with sources?

I haven't lost any arguments, Henry. You guys bluster on, ignoring the defense arguments and then when they get sourced run away from the discussion. My point is only that I'm not going to start arguing with someone who says they're being objective if they haven't even attempted a minimal effort to understand both sides.

How many times have you been asked to post up those ****ing transcripts?

He has asked you and now I have asked on his behalf for you to provide a detailed sourced argument for the defence expert's position. You have avoided to do this continuously.

I never expected him to but pointing out the existence of the transcripts was useful because now 239 can't deny he is a shill.

The area that has these transcripts is private and the site only allows a very small number of members access. The area is limited to the top shills to the point where even Fat Tony who is a shill doesn't have access but 239 does. As such he can no longer deny that he is part of the core group who intentionally engage in misinformation.

Did you just insult an innocent man who lost 2 weeks of his life because of a false accusation by Amanda Knox?

Did you just admit that you're not interested in anything the falsely accused innocent man has to say except the things which may back your argument?

Yes I believe I did. His 15 mins was up years ago.

He lost two weeks or his life because the keystone cops went and arrested him based on nothing. They should have listened to Chiacchiera who wanted him placed on watch not arrested.

He admitted leaning out a window that according to Filomena was shut. He admitted being in the break-in room. Think about what that means.....

why don't you think about the entire comment and what it means

Jim, stop sucking at web browsers. I was able to join the forum and download the files although there was some funkiness when I logged in where I still saw the message saying I couldn't. You should be able to do the same thing.

I'll see what I can do, I have meetings all week. The reality is there is a detailed discussion of both sides in the Massei Report, he sides with the prosecution, and there is a detailed discussion in the appeal about it. In the Massei report it's clear there was an actual presentation that it's different than the report on the shoeprints referenced earlier. That should give you enough to sort out the position if you're really into it.

Good lord, the bolded is literally insanity.

I don't know what else to say. I joined the forum 2 days ago or whatever it was and could eventually download them. I have no connection to any inner circle, and the thread is public not private. Try harder, seriously, it may be simply a matter of clearing your cookies.