Pietro Boemia's Testimony (English)

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search

This testimony is supported by the Rinaldi & Boemia Photo Appendix which contains 56 images referred to in this transcript and the transcript of Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi who also testified on the subject of footprint identification.

In addition both expert's testimony is also supported by the Rinaldi & Boemia Technical Report.


Contents

Summary of Pietro Boemia's Testimony

  • Forensic Dactyloscopist (the scientific investigation of fingerprints and toe or foot prints to identify the owner) with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.
  • Because Rinaldi's testimony on the subject of the footprints was so extensive, the questioning here was going to focus only on Boemia's specific specialty.

Women's Shoeprint

  • There is a women's shoe print size between 36 and 38 that Boemia identified as an Asics size American size 6.5 which is a 37.5. It was an incomplete shoe print but Boemia could determine the size based on the heel width. The shoe could not be a man's shoe. On cross-examination this was asked more than once and every time Boemia answered that it could not be a man's shoe.

Bathmat Footprint

  • Boemia also identified the bathmat print as belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. Bongiorno asked about the missing heel, and Boemia explained that you could use other characteristics. A summary of the characteristics Boemia used are in this chart. At one point while being cross-examined by Bongiorno, Boemia responded with the comment that metatarsal profile was a perfect match to Sollecito.
  • Bongiorno asked about the distortion from the footprint being made by depositing a substance on a soft surface. Boemia explained that because the quantity of blood was small that was not an issue. Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact.
  • Boemia explained that it is impossible for the bathmat footprint to have been made by either Rudy Guede or Amanda Knox. The footprint is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito although it is possible it could be someone who has the same foot characteristics as Raffaele Sollecito.

Luminol Print

  • One of the Luminol prints could not have been made by either Rudy Guede or Amanda Knox. The print was compatible with Raffaele Sollecito.

Three People in the Cottage

  • Asked by Judge Massei how many people were present Boemia said that there were definitely three sets of different feet so there were at least three people in the cottage when the murder happened.

Pietro Boemia's Testimony

This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Pietro Boemia's Testimony for the original Italian transcript.

Thank you to Catnip from the PerugiaMurderfile.org community for this translation.

Transcript of hearing, 09 May 2009

Key to abbreviations
GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
PB Pietro Boemia Footprint consultant
MC Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
FM Francesco Maresca Counsel for Kercher family (civil plaintiffs) Avvocato
GB Giulia Bongiorno Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato
CDV Carlo Dalla Vedova Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
LM Luca Maori Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato

[186]

The witness Pietro Boemia is admitted.

GCM:
You have been summonsed as witness and expert, as witness relating to the comparisons, collection of evidence, you are abjured to say the truth, this obligation is put to you, you have to declare the oath of duty that you find in front of you and describe your particulars.

The witness takes the oath of the proceedings.

PB:
I am Pietro Boemia, I work at the Scientific Police Service in Rome, I was born in San Marco in Lamis, in Foggia province, on 18 March 1956.
GCM:
The Public Prosecutor may proceed with the examination.
MC:
Given that at least on the first batting, considering the exhaustiveness of the deposition of the first witness [Rinaldi], I will only ask you questions on the topics that the first witness has referred to your special competency. Now, before we start, can you tell the Court what activity you carried out in the context of these proceedings, when you were charged with the task, by whom and with whom you worked.
GCM:
You are permitted to consult your report. Please.
PB:
We have carried out an identification activity on a shoe print lifted from the residence where the body was found, in the first consultation and identification activity on footprints in the second [187] consultation I made together with Dr Rinaldi and to know when the task had been assigned it is necessary to consult the paper.

Public Prosecutor Dr Comodi

MC:
No, it’s OK, there’s no problem, all the same it was a technical consulting job assigned by Dr Mignini, therefore the Public Prosecution.
PB:
Yes, by Dr Mignini.
MC:
Now then, to repeat, I would want to start, not wanting to make you repeat everything that Dr Rinaldi has spoken of quite exhaustively, from the shoe print, not the one that was later attributed to the same brand as that worn by Rudy Guede, used by Rudy Guede, but from the other shoe print, which, let’s be specific straightaway, has no parentage, in the sense that the shoe that made that impression has not been found, correct?
PB:
Yes.
MC:
Now, can you show us in the meantime the print we are talking about, what type of tests you carried out, what were the measurements that you made on that type of print and what the considerations concerning the dimensions, etc.
PB:
Is this the shoe?
MC:
Yes.
PB:
It was on the pillow slip.
MC:
Therefore photo 42.
PB:
Photo 42?
MC:
That is the page is 42.
PB:
The page is 42, although the photo relative to the file compiled by Section evidencing latent prints was photo number 105. Therefore I carried out investigations at shoe shops to see if I could trace the shoe that could have been able to produce this sole, I also investigated at artisan workshops, I found the soles that they use to shod the shoes with, in short; I also took a photographic record, I photographed an “ASICS” size 37.5, and I compared the dimensions of the heel and from there in short I was able to obtain broad brush the size more or less of the shoe that could have produced this print.
MC:
In the meantime let’s see what dimensions the print has.
PB:
The print… that is on the right I can see a mark that is the end of the heel.
MC:
You’re looking for a pointer?
PB:
Yes. That mark there.
LG:
Right?
MC:
Left.
LG:
Let’s say the one on the right for someone looking or who…
GCM:
On the left for someone looking.
PB:
Yes, on the left, that one there, this mark, it’s a little semicircular mark, which in practice stands to mean that that is the end of the heel, while [189] instead here it starts to turn around, and narrow, therefore it’s obvious that that is the heel, while here the spreading out starts, in practice, and the sole of the foot starts; therefore this is the heel-end and this is the toe-end.
MC:
Which left no print, though.
PB:
There is a major spreading apart on this side, underneath, that makes me think that it is a left shoe.
MC:
A loading [caricamento]?
PB:
Spreading apart [divaricamento].
MC:
Ah, spreading apart.
PB:
With respect to the upper part.
MC:
But you took measurements of this portion of the print?
PB:
Yes, I have to look them up: 77 long and 45 wide at the widest part.
MC:
77 what?
PB:
77 millimetres.
MC:
Did you have any seized shoes comparable with this print?
PB:
With this one no, we had only the shoes seized from Sollecito and the one that we later collected in the shoe shop.
MC:
That one is the same as Rudy’s.

[190]

PB:
Whereas we examined the seized shoes in the second consultation.
MC:
And therefore, I would say, there was no compatibility with any of the seized shoes?
PB:
No, no.
MC:
And so what type of investigation did you then carry out on this print?
PB:
Investigations at shoe shops and cobblers.
MC:
Very good, and what did you find?
PB:
I found, let’s say, a sort of compatibility as regards the width of the heel, also examining these soles, I was able to… it’s in any case a print from a woman’s shoe.
MC:
Woman’s?
PB:
Woman’s, yes, and then let’s say that the size could be between 36 and 38.
MC:
Can you show us the shoe that you took as a comparison? Which though does not mean that in your opinion…; I’ll do it after the question.
PB:
This is an “ASICS” size 6.5, which would be equivalent to a 37.5.

[191]

MC:
Why did you choose this specific shoe?
PB:
Because of the shape of the heel, I went looking for typologies of shoes that would have had more or less the same shape of sole and the elements that make it up.
LG:
Where are you reading from? Mr President, pardon me, what is he looking at? Where was this photo?
MC:
It’s the slide.
PB:
It’s a photo.
GCM:
That is what material are you consulting? A photo that is part of your report or another one?
PB:
No, no.
GCM:
What is it?
PB:
It’s an in-depth analysis, this is an investigation I carried out, which though they hadn’t initially put onto the consultation.
GCM:
Therefore the consultation wasn’t on the image that you’re now…
PB:
It wasn’t on the consultation, but it was in any case a thing that was an image that I had.
GCM:
It was an image that?
PB:
That I had made in a shop.
GCM:
In the fulfilment of the task that you had been given?
PB:
Yes, in the fulfilment of the technical consultancy.
GCM:
That image, though, you hadn’t put it into your report.
PB:
No, in the report no.
GCM:
You had used it to compile the report?
PB:
Yes, yes, this one and for the soles recovered from a cobbler’s craft workshop.
MC:
Let’s clear this up fully, because with this comparison you do not intend to mean that surely, or probably that print had been made or in any case impressed with a shoe of that type.
PB:
Ah, no, no, absolutely not.
MC:
What in substance had you wanted to say with this comparison? What you have said before and that therefore it is a man’s shoe?
PB:
Absolutely not.
MC:
And why absolutely not?
PB:
Because the heel is not wide enough in short, let’s say that male footwear is at least, let’s say, 6 centimetres wide in short.
GCM:
6 centimetres in?
PB:
In width, at least, then it depends obviously on the size, of the foot and these are a 4.
MC:
Therefore 60 millimetres.

[193]

PB:
60 millimetres.
GCM:
The heel?
PB:
Yes, at least.
GCM:
But are you talking height or width?
PB:
Width.
MC:
Width, that is the same segment that you marked as 40 millimetres.
PB:
Yes, the 40 millimetres that I have indicated at that point there.
MC:
Of a gym shoe or in any case…
PB:
A man’s gym shoe depends on the size in short, it can be up to 8 centimetres, even.
MC:
Therefore 80 millimetres.
PB:
80 millimetres, yes.
MC:
Compared to the 40 millimetres of this one.
PB:
Compared to the 40 millimetres.
MC:
Mr President, for the moment I would have no other questions because I would be repeating the identical ones already put to the other expert.
GCM:
The witness is common to who else? The Sollecito defence; the civil party has questions?

Civil Party - Maresca

FM:
Yes, only a clarification to then lead into the examination, when you speak of the heel in this case you mean evidently the posterior zone of the shoe.
PB:
Yes, the part of the heel.
FM:
Part of the heel, therefore not a heel in the sense of the high heels of a woman’s shoe.
PB:
No, that is almost surely a completely whole sole, like this type here, a gym shoe.
FM:
Therefore we mean posterior zone, the heel of the foot in short.
PB:
Yes.
FM:
Good, thank you.

Sollecito Defence - Bongiorno

GCM:
Please, counsellor.
GB:
I am Counsellor Giulia Bongiorno. What specialty do you have? Because the prior consultant had told us…
PB:
I am a dactyloscopist.
GB:
Now then, being a dactyloscopist, I wanted the following clarifications. The first is this: how do you know, in the scope of your conclusions, with reference to prints from bare feet, an opinion of probable identity can be spoken of, now I am reading it to you in a specific way, but in the scope of your consultation instead there is continual repetition of the expression that [195] that these prints are not useful for positive comparisons, but only useful for negative comparisons. We have already asked the preceding consultant, but I would have need of a specific reply from you also,.
PB:
Yes.
GB:
What does it mean that a print is useful for comparison… that it is not useful for positive comparisons?
PB:
It is not useful for a positive comparison because above all we do not have the necessary elements to make a definitive attribution, it is useful for negative comparisons because in any case for me it helps in a great many cases to exclude specific other people and therefore, at that point, we can even make a probable identity, should there be any coinciding elements.
GB:
But what I am asking myself is this, in the course of all this consultancy that we have and you are now producing, once you’ve tagged these prints as not useful for positive comparisons, how come then you can give an opinion of probability, if upstream in the process it’s not useful.
PB:
Eh alright, I’ve just said so, because there aren’t elements sufficient to give a definitive identity; but in any case a probable identity can be given.
GB:
With reference to the print relating to…, the one on the small bathmat, which had been attributed, via this opinion of yours, to a probable opinion of identity, to Raffaele Sollecito, I ask you, you know that this print was missing a part.

[196]

PB:
The heel,
GB:
The heel; but it was missing the heel because it had been put on the end part of the bathmat, or because perhaps the person who had left it had been standing on their toes?
PB:
Look, it’s not that we can say, in short, we would need to ask the one who had left the print; how can we say with certainty…
GB:
No, I’ll explain.
PB:
… if he was standing on his toes or something like that?
GB:
No, I haven’t explained myself well maybe, or I think this time you haven’t understood, because the question seemed very clear to me; if this print…
PB:
No, I understood the question…
GB:
Will you let me finish?
PB:
You asked me why it was only on the bathmat and not on the tiling, but I sincerely cannot tell you why.
GB:
I was asking you if it was at the edge of the mat or in the centre of the mat, because if it was…
PB:
At the edge,
GB:
Excuse me, will you allow me to finish? Will you allow me to finish?
PB:
Yes.

[197]

GB:
If it was in the middle of the mat it could be a foot standing on its toes or a foot part of which was not stained with blood, or else if it was on the edge already there are differing consequence; you know where it was placed?
PB:
It was at the edge of the bathmat, towards the corner.
GB:
Therefore it was on the edge part of the bathmat?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
How do you know it was on the edge part? Have you seen the bathmat?
PB:
No, that is I’ve seen it in photos.
GB:
You’ve seen the photo of the bathmat. To give a measurement of this print, it would have been necessary to also have the end part of the foot, or else can a measurement be given, a print even if it doesn’t have the heel?
PB:
Obviously I cannot give the size of the complete foot because it is missing the heel, therefore I compare the elements that I have available, in this case part of the plantar arch, the big toe and all the rest in short; what I was able to do, I did. Perhaps it would have been better to have the heel also.
GB:
Indeed. In the absence of papillary ridges, therefore of the possibility of specific attribution, the element of measurement takes on a decisive aspect, or doesn’t it?

[198]

PB:
I would say yes eh, this is quite discriminatory, if maybe we consider that towards the end of the 1800s we, that is we, the ones who preceded us, used an identification method created by Alfons Bettillion (phonetic) and he was measuring the length of the fingers, the forearm, the neck, the ears, a methodology that was then superseded by the advent of fingerprinting.
GB:
Yes, although let’s forget about prints.
PB:
Yes, it was superseded by fingerprinting because in any case it’s a much faster and economic means, if we’re going to go and see.
GB:
Yes, but therefore, I’m saying, the measurement from the big toe to the heel…
PB:
I can’t do because I don’t have the heel.
GB:
I was asking myself, therefore it’s an important element for attributing a print?
PB:
Yes, just as the width of the metatarsus is important, the dimensions of the metatarsus, the shape of the metatarsus, the shape of the big toe, the dimensions of the big toe, in the end they are all elements that are useful…
GB:
They are all important elements.
PB:
Certainly.

[199]

GB:
Amongst these elements is there or is there not, from the scientific point of view, a sort of hierarchy? And that the essential thing for compatibility is this, and on this everyone is on the same level, I mean to say that to establish if a foot were mine, this element of measurement is quite important, or is it the same as others?
PB:
Let’s say that it is an extra element, although in any case the shape already is quite sufficient enough.
GB:
In the scope of the shape is meant, because on this point I want to be clear because evidently instead with the preceding witness perhaps I had not been totally clear, when Raffaele Sollecito impressed the print in the famous…
PB:
I didn’t do it.
GB:
Whoever had done it does not matter, now I’ll show it to you, seeing that you’re a dactyloscopist, this photo, I also placed it before your colleague and I had said to him that according to our experts, but we’ll see it evidently, we’ll put them to you, they indicated to me that this big toe has a peculiarity, you’ve made reference to the size, I’ve seen in the scope of your reconstruction, but the direction of this big toe have you considered it or haven’t you thought it was a characterising element?
PB:
The direction…, what do you mean by direction?
GB:
In the scope of this transparency…

[200]

MC:
Pick it up, pick it up.
GB:
If you can pick it up.
PB:
But I can see it quite well even from here.
GCM:
That is the distance of the big toe from the other toes, in this sense.
GB:
Two elements I’ll put to you, if we pick them up, I’ll put them to you. There was an image that we’ve seen before…
PB:
The one of the foot that you want to see?
GB:
They were two images side by side, one of this and one of Sollecito’s foot; they were put side by side a short while ago.
PB:
Here it is.
GB:
Perfect. Now then, I was asking you, if your colleague made any reference as a point of reference important according to you, to the dimensions of the big toe.
PB:
Yes.
GB:
He had measured it and had said that in terms of dimensions, in his opinion, it was identical to the other one and alright, this part I’ve understood. I instead am asking myself, and what I am asking you is whether you have done this type of comparison, two items, the first is whether the direction, the axis of the big toe had been taken into consideration, whether the probable distance from the other toes had been taken into consideration, considering though that the second toe is not visible.

[201]

PB:
The second toe is not visible, only the big toe is visible, only the big toe is visible.
GB:
The axis of the big toe was taken into consideration?
PB:
But the axis frankly not…, that is I made this measurement. I don’t understand.
GB:
Now then the axis of the big toe?
PB:
What do you mean?


GB:
The axis, the direction of the big toe doesn’t seem identical to us…
PB:
Which means to say that they rotate themselves, they displace themselves with respect to …?
GB:
Yes.
PB:
That is whether there is a different movement the one compared with the other?
GB:
Yes, that.
PB:
Ah, yes, yes.
GB:
Yes, you’ve taken it into consideration?
PB:
And well, certainly, although in any case a probable shift doesn’t import any problem into the measurement.
GB:
What I am asking myself is this: if these two prints are compared, the big toe axis to us does not [202] appear identical to the axis that is in the print, because one seems more straight to us and the other more bent.
PB:
Ah, on the measurement I did? Yes, well, that one there appears slightly spread out, the one taken,
GB:
Exactly, I wanted to ask about this misalignment…
PB:
But by a couple of millimetres, they aren’t a great deal.
GB:
A couple of millimetres you’ve worked out.
PB:
Yes, more or less, in short I haven’t measured them.
GB:
You haven’t measured them, although you’ve noticed that there was this little…
PB:
Yes.
GB:
And now I wanted to ask you about this couple of millimetres how much then do they impact on the dimensions?
PB:
On the measurements?
GB:
Yes.
PB:
They don’t impact on them.
GB:
They don’t impact on them. And instead the distance between the big toe and the other toes, was this reconstructed in some way or not?
PB:
Truly I work on what I have at my disposition, if I don’t have the toes in the print on the mat, what measure would the other toes have.

[203]

GB:
The third toe has a specific direction, of Sollecito obviously.
PB:
It has its direction.
GB:
Have you taken this direction into consideration? Because we don’t see it reproduced in the print.
PB:
It’s what I have said before, Counsellor, if I don’t have the element in front of me what do I measure? That is it is not an element available to me for attribution or even for ruling out.
GB:
For me it has to do with understanding how many valid points with respect to the specific characteristics that that foot has, were they taken into consideration, because we have seen that you a short while ago had succeeded in reconstructing a foot that we weren’t seeing, therefore it could be that you were giving me answers.
PB:
I see only this big toe here.
GB:
Now then, in the light of what we’ve been saying to each other so far, we have a print on a bathmat without a heel, which does not allow the measurement of the entire print; is that correct?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
How many toes are missing from the print?
PB:
Four.

[204]

GB:
And therefore you’ve used the big toe with this 2 millimetre difference as a parameter?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
And then in actuality the part that we see in this photograph, on this slide, it would be the sole?
PB:
Yes, the metatarsus, the height and the width.
GB:
Therefore you reached a conclusion of probable identity solely on the basis of these elements, or in any case…?
PB:
No, also from the shape.
GB:
Also from the shape?
PB:
Yes, yes.
GB:
In the scope of the evaluation of the shape then….
PB:
The metatarsal profile, the left profile is perfect, it’s his.
GB:
In the scope of the evaluation of the shape ….
PB:
The bumps beneath the second and third toe.
MC:
Point them out, point them out.
PB:
There are these bumps that are very discriminatory however, they’re not all the same.
GB:
And on the basis of these bumps then could you discern the toes?

[205]

PB:
The profile of the metatarsus, still.
GB:
Pardon me, seeing that you can see the bumps, the bumps are beneath the toes?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
Now then let’s go back a moment to the print that one on the bathmat.
PB:
This one on the bathmat?
GB:
Yes.
PB:
It’s that one.
GB:
If you can use the pointer.
PB:
Ah, you want to see the bumps? These here.
GB:
Pardon me, where there is a bump, there is a toe?
PB:
Above yes.
GB:
Now then the question I was asking before, that is whether you made measurements, a person could make them on the basis of the bump.
PB:
But Counsellor, what will I do it with if I can’t see the toe?
GB:
Pardon me, if that is the bump…
PB:
Eh, I see the bump, therefore I can measure…

[206]

GB:
The bump above a toe?
GCM:
Yes, but not seeing the toe he cannot establish the dimensions of the same.
PB:
If I can’t see the toe how can I do it?
GB:
No, Mr President, he can also measure between bump and bump,
PB:
And I did it between bump and bump.
GCM:
This is a different question, another circumstance, you were being asked about the toe, the toe cannot be seen, she is saying. Therefore the measurement between bump and bump had been made.
PB:
Yes, yes.
GB:
You made a measurement between the big toe bump and the second toe bump?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
And can you tell me then how much?
PB:
Measurement around 8 millimetres for both of the prints compared, while instead I’ve also done it with Guede’s, there are 12 millimetres of difference.
GB:
There.
PB:
It’s longer, it’s longer.
GCM:
What is?

[207]

PB:
It’s more compatible with Sollecito than with Guede.
GB:
Yes, but for now let’s not talk about Guede unless we want to get confused.
PB:
Ah, alright, go on.
GB:
Let’s talk about this for now.
PB:
Yes, alright, alright.
GB:
The distance between the bump of the first toe and the bump of the second toe.
PB:
Is 8 millimetres.
GB:
In both the prints?
PB:
Yes, in both of them.
GB:
Between the second and the third.
PB:
Yes, those two bumps that can be seen under…
GCM:
Which are they?
PB:
This, this and this here. Actually this one I haven’t measured, between this and…, this is not a bump, it’s the profile of the metatarsus.
GCM:
Therefore you haven’t measured the distance between the second and third toe.

[208]

PB:
No, no, apart from that in any case it is quite visible on the representation that we’ve done in short.
GB:
For now I’m was curious about them because then we have to do the same measurements as you; then I was curious to know what the measurements between bump and bump are.
PB:
Ah, no, no, I haven’t measured them.
GB:
Now then it’s this that I had asked you about.
PB:
Ah, sorry.
GB:
Therefore to avoid that there seems to be another, you haven’t measured the distance between bump and bump in the scope of this transparency that we are looking at?
PB:
No, no.
GB:
You haven’t measured it.
PB:
No.
GB:
Isn’t it an element useful for expressing an opinion of comparison knowing the distances that exist between both the toes and between the bumps?
PB:
I think that what we have produced is rather…, yes, it’s also an element, certainly, it’s a characteristic.
GB:
It’s a characteristic, exactly, because amongst the characteristics that my technical people tell me are needed for evaluating comparisons [209] of prints, from what they tell me, often there is the measurement between the toes and between the bumps. My question was: if the measurement between the toes was not possible because in fact you’re telling me the toes are missing, why wasn’t the measurement between the bumps not proceeded with?
PB:
We hadn’t, let’s put it like this, considered it necessary, but we can do it.
GB:
Now then the measurement of the bumps hasn’t been done. Another thing that I’ll ask you, in the scope of your evaluation, have you taken into account that in any case it’s a matter of a print by apposition, from what we read…
PB:
Deposition of a substance.
GB:
Deposition of a substance. Now then when a substance is deposited onto a soft surface, this substance can be extended out because the surface is soft?
PB:
In theory it depends on the amount of blood deposited and on the composition of the substance, but if we look in this case and we enlarge the photograph, certainly that’s not possible here, although a specific piece of work needs to be done.
GB:
What type of test could be done to find out, even by you as a dactyloscopist?
PB:
Look, a slight enlargement is enough in short, not a great deal.

[210]

GB:
Slight?
PB:
Enlargement. Here we can’t see it because in any case it isn’t…, that is the graphic effect is not satisfactory, although in any case on all the fringes that we can see on the print, that is those stained by the print, in practice it isn’t that there is all this quantity of blood which allows… (word not comprehensible) of the print; that is it did not happen.
GB:
About the enlargement that you had, had you done it or not, or is it still to do?
PB:
No, we saw it on the computer.
GB:
You did an enlargement on the computer?
PB:
Yes, yes, but an excessive enlargement is not necessary, in the end that is the photograph there is distorted, it’s not clear, although if one even here approaches the monitor, which has a better definition, it can be noted here also, in short the fringes are not… they don’t allow what…, the fringes, first of all the quantity of blood, do not permit what you are hypothesizing, they aren’t stained at this point.
GB:
But you know the quantity of blood that had been deposited?
PB:
I can see from the photo.
GB:
The quantity of blood.
PB:
Eh yes, it’s not much.
GB:
It’s not much?

[211]

PB:
Eh well, you can see.
GB:
If there’s a foot on a soft surface, this foot has liquid on the bottom, blood even, it more or less imprints itself also according to whether I’m standing up on two feet or on one foot, this statement is correct?
PB:
Yes, yes, a light weight is enough which in any case…
GB:
The weight makes the print.
PB:
Yes, it reproduces the print.
GB:
Oh my God! The symmetry of the foot makes the print.
PB:
No, no, that’s not necessary, it’s in any case a substance that is very easily deposited on the mat.
GB:
My question is this: if a person was standing on two feet or on one foot…
PB:
Do you mean to say if I weighed 40 kg an effect is produced, and if I weighed 80 kg another one is produced? Nothing much changes, the quantity of blood is not much.
GB:
Now then first of all what do you mean by: nothing much changes?
PB:
It doesn’t change.
GB:
Nothing changes at all?

[212]

PB:
It doesn’t change.
GB:
If my body weight is on two feet or on one foot, does the print change?
PB:
No way, the quantity of blood is not much; that is how can the print change? It can vary by half a millimetre or by one millimetre? That is this is relevant how?
GB:
I will ask you the questions, then we will draw…
PB:
It’s not…, it’s not relevant.
GB:
Therefore the body weight, according to you, affects the print by a millimetre?
PB:
No, I don’t know, tests would need to be done, but in any case, even given that there might be some difference, according to me it is not relevant.
GB:
Based on the enlargements, is it possible to see better if the fringes have blood inside them or not?
PB:
Certainly, I’ve already told you.
GB:
Can you better explain this concept to me?
PB:
It can be seen, it can be seen clearly, that the fringes are stained relatively in short, there’s a small quantity of blood. That is a fringe is made up of a thread of three filaments of…, it’s possible, there are a lot of points, the major part [213] of the fringes, that two filaments are stained and the third isn’t. Therefore that means that in any case the blood hadn’t spread out, it was of a small quantity and hadn’t spread out. The print is in actuality the one that has been deposited. That is there has been no widening.
GB:
For the purposes of establishing whether there was widening and checking these fringes, you’ve had a way of taking the mat and looking at it?
PB:
I have never seen the mat, I’ve worked off photographs, we’ve already said this.
GB:
In the scope of this testing could it be or could it have been useful in any case to also look at this mat?
PB:
No, the photos are rather clear themselves.
GB:
Those enlargements, these; on the basis of this you do not need to see the mat?
PB:
No.
GB:
The possible height and thickness could have an impact, or not?
PB:
I don’t think so, you always have to look at the amount of blood deposited.
GB:
If I have the smallest amount of blood on the bottom of my foot, according to the height and the width [213] evidently this blood can deposit itself a little bit further down or a little bit further up and therefore be a more uniform print, isn’t that so?
PB:
I understand but it always depends on the amount of blood, the amount of blood is not much, therefore it stained what it had to stain and nothing else in short, it hadn’t spread out, Doctor.
GB:
But this evaluation of yours about the scarcity of blood, where does it come from, just from this photo?
PB:
We’re repeating things from the…, I’ve repeated it three times, if I haven’t lost track, the fringes have not all been stained with blood, therefore it means that there has been no widening.
GB:
The perspective by which the photographs are made can impact on the method of measurement then on your comparison activity?
PB:
The perspective yes.
GB:
Why, what can happen?
PB:
If it isn’t done let’s put it this way perfectly vertically there’s a falsified perspective, and so it happened because that examination that we had made in any case…
GB:
What happened in that examination?

[215]

PB:
The first tile was larger and the second a little smaller, the third a bit smaller again,
GB:
If you could describe to me what happened, in a clear manner. If you can describe it fully to me.
PB:
Yes, yes. In actuality the tile where the print was positioned couldn’t be seen very clearly and we had enlarged the tile that one there that can be seen in short, we’re speaking of the photo the one …
GB:
On page 45 in your report.
PB:
The one of Luminol actually, the one in the dark.
GB:
Exactly, exactly.
PB:
Which though for practical purposes in terms of conclusions hadn’t had a lot of impact, because in any case, as regards the width dimensions there was literally zero difference because the dimensions broad-brush were those there. There was a slight difference as regards the length, which we took account of in any case, in short.
GB:
You had?
PB:
We had certainly taken this into account.
GB:
Pardon me, in the first consultation you had measured 169.3.
PB:
Exactly, yes.

[216]

GB:
Then? In the detailed analysis that you had done for the hearing?
PB:
Ah, in the detailed analysis we had 162, but enlarging the tile on which the print actually was.
GB:
Therefore it is correct to say that in the scope of the first consultation there had been a measurement of the tile, falsified by a photo perspective?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
And that in any case, on the basis of this, you reached a conclusion; then you did a detailed analysis for this hearing?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
And you had obtained a different measurement in the light of a new perspective?
PB:
No, we haven’t done this in short; we substantially confirm what we produced in the first instance. This was solely a detailed analysis to seek to clarify this difference that had been found in the measurement, but our opinion remains the same.
GB:
The difference that there was made Sollecito’s print under-measured with respect to the print to be compared with?
PB:
Could you repeat that? I haven’t understood, sorry.

[217]

GB:
We’ve said that the tile measurements can be used to see…
PB:
Yes, to find natural size of the print.
GB:
Exactly; at the beginning what was the problem in measuring this tile that then in fact led you to this famous correction?
PB:
The problem?
GB:
Sollecito’s print ended up being…?
PB:
Ah, that it ended up being smaller?
GB:
Yes.
PB:
But there were no problems, in short.
GB:
It ended up being smaller, by how much?
PB:
I have to see.
GB:
Eh.
PB:
The measurement…
GB:
You can’t do it like that, you have to take the slide here…
PB:
Yes, because we had done another type of measurement, while instead there we had done another one of them. In any case, broad brush it’s a centimetre.
GCM:
A centimetre?

[218]

PB:
Maybe, yes.
MC:
Pardon me, Boemia, why don’t you show the images so that at least we can understand too?
PB:
Yes.
MC:
Go to the Luminol pictures, those without perspective correction and with perspective correction.
PB:
About 17 millimetres.
GB:
17?
PB:
Yes, that is the measurement from the big toe, the tip of the big toe up to the heel.
GB:
17 millimetres?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
Of difference?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
17 millimetres impact in the scope of a comparison between prints?
PB:
Certainly, although obviously, returning to the topic we were on earlier, knowing that in any case the dimensions were reduced, we had also taken this into account in short.
GB:
Yes, but I was interested in what the measurement was, 17. One other thing, an opinion of probable identity of a print like the one that you’ve done, obviously it is of probable identity, have you ruled out the other [219] two and Raffaele Sollecito is left, it’s attributable only to Raffaele Sollecito , or to an indeterminate number of persons?
PB:
Certainly, nothing prevents that maybe someone could have these characteristics, although…
GB:
Thank you, Mr President.
GCM:
Please.

Knox Defence - Dalla Vedova

CDV:
Thank you Mr President. I am Counsellor Dalla Vedova for the Knox defence. Dr Boemia, I wanted to return to your findings concerning the print on the pillowcase.
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
And specifically the second print, because there’s a shoe print and then there’s another print that you yourselves have classified as…
PB:
There are two shoe prints.
CDV:
There are two of them?
PB:
Yes, and a palm print.
CDV:
I wanted that you better clarify for us the print about which you also spoke of before. I refer to page 20 of your report, if we want to also pick up the photo, when you then had said that you had also made a comparison with a shoe, going to buy it, this “ASICS”, to then state that this is a print from a shoe presumably a woman’s shoe. We’re talking about the pillow case.

[220]

PB:
Of the woman’s shoe?
CDV:
The presumed woman’s shoe.
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
This one that you’re showing me today for the first time.
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
I would like to use the photo that is annexed to your report, this one here, because the print is also described here.
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
Can I have confirmation from you? That is you, on the basis of the photograph that is on page 20, which I ask you courteously to show everybody, which then is that one that can be seen there, although perhaps we can see it better on page 20.
PB:
This one?
CDV:
That one. You state that this one has dimensions of 77 millimetres in length and about 46 millimetres in breadth. I read verbatim: “one distinctly notes an outer profile, to the exclusion of a small portion below to the right of the footwear referable to the heel and 9 lightly-arced elements of width about 2.6 millimetres distant from each other about 3.5 millimetres[”]. Would you be so kind as to show me which is this trace that you [221] define as 77 millimetres in length and 46 millimetres in width? Where is it in the photo?
PB:
It’s this one.
CDV:
Which one, this black blotch?
PB:
I have the colour photo here.
CDV:
No, that is a blood stain probably.
PB:
Now then, this rather reduced print, because we’re talking about 7 millimetres, 4 millimetres…
CDV:
Yeah well, but there’s a centimetre-scale here, therefore we can lay it out. Mr President, I ask the same thing that I asked the precedent, who obviously replied in the way that we’ve heard, if you on this photo can point it out to me with a pencil; if you would be so kind as to show me which of these is this print of 7(sic) millimetres and 46 millimetres width.
PB:
All of it, we can see it even there. I have already specified that this is part of the heel, because there’s an element that allows one to think that the heel turns here…
CDV:
Although let’s go in baby steps, Dr Boemia, first I want to understand this specific indication, why you had calculated 77 millimetres by 46 millimetres width. Which one is it exactly on that photograph? Where is it?

[222]

PB:
What, the length?
CDV:
Both of them, I’m speaking to you about this trace that you have identified in such a precise manner…
PB:
There it is, it’s here, it starts from here and finishes here.
CDV:
Pardon me, if I can give you this ruler and from the photograph you do the calculation for me that you are talking about? From where did you say now, from there to there how many centimetres is it? Because we’re not talking millimetres, we’re talking centimetres.
PB:
But it’s almost 8 centimetres, if we’re counting here, because this point starts from 0, then this can be considered 1 centimetre, it’s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, almost 8.
CDV:
Listen, these 9 lightly-arced elements instead, of width 2.6?
PB:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
CDV:
And the heel print that measures around 39 millimetres, which one is it?
PB:
It’s from here to there. Then I’ve also indicated it on this other one, look. Here it is, I’ve indicated here as well, it’s 40 millimetres, there, therefore it gets a bit bigger below.
CDV:
But how did you establish what was the heel?

[223]

PB:
But I’ve already told you, haven’t I? I’ve got this element here which is lightly arced, which makes me think that this is a squirt of blood that was deposited on the heel and had reproduced the end part of the heel; then after here it starts to turn, there finishing here.
CDV:
So you see a round shape of the end of the …
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
And therefore think that that is…
PB:
I think that that is the heel.
CDV:
… the heel.
LG:
You think.
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
I understand.
LG:
We don’t see anything.
CDV:
But you when you made your judgment call and concluded that: “it is possible to hold on the basis of all the detectable measurements and above all on the limited extent of the heel that the print is probably assignable as a woman’s shoe”; when had you done this, had you made measurements? Or have you done the measurement today, with this photograph? Because that photograph is not in the file.

[224]

PB:
The measurement is in the report, Counsel; then after 44 is the wider part.
CDV:
Yes, but you’ve defined the print in this manner, and then you have a conclusion saying: this is a woman’s shoe. On the basis of what objective elements do you say that?
PB:
On the reduced dimensions.
CDV:
If you’re saying that the print has an outside profile, is an inside profile visible on this photograph?
PB:
I consider all of this outside, everything inside the perimeter around this here and this here.
CDV:
And you evaluated the inside profile?
PB:
The inside profile is the semicircular elements.
CDV:
The inside profile…
PB:
The inside profile in any case doesn’t exist, in short it’s an abstract concept, Counsel. The profile is only the edge of the shoe.
CDV:
Then you’ve identified the edge of the shoe…
PB:
Let’s say then, maybe I’ve expressed myself a bit badly here, let’s say all the edge of the shoe, all right.
CDV:
But therefore you can see the two sides of the shoe in that photo?

[225]

PB:
Yes, yes.
CDV:
Although here you’ve only spoken about the outside profile. Now then by inside profile you mean the edge?
PB:
Then let’s say outside left and outside right.
CDV:
Quite, but you would have had to indicate it here, from the, from the outside profile to the…, from the right profile to the left profile. Instead you spoke only of the outside profile. You were meaning the edge?
PB:
Yes.
MC:
Perimeter.
PB:
Perimeter, yes.
CDV:
I understand; so the comparison you had made with this shoe, on what objective basis did you establish that it was a shoe, it seems to me a gym shoe as I see it, it couldn’t have been a moccasin, for example? Or else some different shoe?
PB:
Moccasins usually I think have the heel and sole separate, this has a joined-up sole.
LG:
There are all these plates now.
PB:
There are?
CDV:
How were you able to say it was joined up?
MC:
You can see it’s joined-up.
PB:
It’s all joined-up, the sole is one unit, like in a gym shoe.

[226]

CDV:
Can you show me on the photograph? For example you make a distinction between heel and sole of the shoe.
PB:
Yes, but it’s not that I can see it clearly, in short, I see let’s say towards the top…
CDV:
Look, not even we can see it very clearly, that’s why I’m pressing the point.
GCM:
Pardon me, Counsel, let’s let the witness finish. Please, go on.
PB:
It’s not that I can see the sole quite clearly, I can visualise it because in any case there towards the end, towards the top it starts to widen in fact it’s size is 43 or 44…; I have to check, OK, in any case it’s a bigger size with respect to the part that’s below.
CDV:
But according to you is the sole of the shoe totally on the pillow slip or partly, does it go off with respect to the pillow slip?
PB:
Maybe, I wouldn’t know.
CDV:
So how come you can know the shoe size, if you didn’t have…?
PB:
I deduce it from the heel width.
CDV:
You deduce it only from the width, you don’t have the length of the shoe.
PB:
No, no, I don’t have the length.

[227]

CDV:
And so how can you say it’s a size between 36 and 38? This morning you’ve said that the width of men’s shoes can be 60 to 80 millimetres.
PB:
Yes, it depends on the type of shoe obviously, or else on the sole they have.
CDV:
Therefore you cannot rule out that this could also be a man’s shoe.
PB:
Absolutely not, this is not a man’s shoe.
CDV:
No, you cannot rule out that it is a man’s shoe?
MC:
And yet he rules it out.
GCM:
No, no, he rules it out.
PB:
I rule it out, it cannot be a man’s shoe.
CDV:
Yes but you’ve said that a man’s shoe can also be 66.
PB:
It depends, it depends on the type of shoe…
CDV:
And therefore if this one is 77 wide it can also be a man’s shoe.
GCM:
Pardon me, let’s avoid talking at the same time otherwise…; please.
CDV:
That is, the width of 77 doesn’t exist there, it’s a length of 77.

[228]

PB:
67 long, yes.
CDV:
77, and 47 wide.
MC:
40, not 46.
PB:
The heel is 40…
CDV:
I read: “77 millimetres long and 46 millimetres wide[”].
PB:
Yes, in the upper part though, where it starts to widen and form the sole.
CDV:
But you don’t make a distinction here between the upper and lower parts.
PB:
Yes, OK, Counsel, we haven’t identified this one here, so…
GB:
That is you’re saying it today.
GCM:
He’s answering all the same.
PB:
We haven’t identified it, therefore it’s not that we had given it great weight, we had in any case ascertained that it is a woman’s shoe and on this there is no doubt, exactly because of the dimensions.
CDV:
Listen, together with the first evaluation, you were present on the 15th of November, you took part in the selection at Perla and Privitera, on the 15th of November?
PB:
I’ve never been in Perugia other than today and the days that I came to accept the task from Dr Mignini.

[229]

CDV:
So when was this fragment of shoeprint recovered from the pillow put before you, the first time?
PB:
At the office.
CDV:
In Rome?
PB:
Yeah well, certainly, we’d acquired it from the latent prints Section.
CDV:
I understand. Listen, do you know that there’s also another photograph, which was tagged as number 104? Up until now we have been talking about 105.
PB:
104 is the shoe attributed to “Outbreak 2”.
CDV:
Do you remember to whom it was attributed?
PB:
The shoe print on the pillow case?
CDV:
I am speaking about photo 104, a detail of the pillow case on the pillow, yes, the other shoe on the pillow slip.
PB:
Yes, it was attributed to a “Nike Outbreak 2” size 45, right shoe.
CDV:
I understand. Listen, you have already said that you have never seen the bathmat, we’re now talking instead about the print on the bathmat.
PB:
Yes.

[230]

CDV:
But I’m asking you: wasn’t it better to do a direct analysis of the print, seeing that the bathmat is available, rather than using a photograph?
PB:
It’s the same question as from Counsellor Bongiorno.
CDV:
Yes.
PB:
I repeat to you that in any case it wasn’t necessary because it can be clearly seen in the photo.
CDV:
A photograph is totally faithful to the object photographed, or in terms of dimensions can there be a difference?
PB:
Ah, dimensions? No, no, absolutely not. There was the measurement strip scale which had been dimensioned in its correct dimensions.
CDV:
The photograph of the bathmat, do you know where it was made?
PB:
Look, don’t ask me; I know that it was taken during a crime scene search, but that other one I, frankly…
GCM:
Excuse me, maybe you can also consult your notes. Do you remember how many photos there are of the bathmat? Is there only one of them, or more than one?
PB:
No, more than one.
GCM:
Were they also taken at the same time?
PB:
No, no, one of them was taken during a crime scene search, in fact…
GCM:
And another?

[231]

PB:
The others frankly where they were taken I don’t know.
GCM:
Not in the crime scene search, not in the place where they were?
PB:
It could also be that it was taken at the crime scene, during the crime scene search…
GCM:
You don’t know.
PB:
… or something, although frankly I…, that is we collected and used that one there which we had used because the one taken during the crime scene search is slightly out of focus, therefore un…, although in any case the outlines and all the rest can be noted quite well, in short.
CDV:
Do you know if special apparatus had been used to take these photographs, or just a simple camera?
PB:
As I’ve told you in short I don’t know where the photo was taken, I can’t tell you what type of equipment had been used.
GCM:
Yes, he wasn’t there.
CDV:
Do you consider that it would still be possible now by taking the bathmat, to repeat an examination of this type, obviously also making use of a further check on the prints of the two accused?
PB:
It all depends on the conditions on the bathmat, frankly I don’t know what to tell you about it.
CDV:
According to you, the print even now, has it been preserved in the correct manner, could it still be analysed?

[232]

PB:
Well, if it hasn’t vanished it can still be utilised, as long as the substantial differences that will be there to be noted are noted; in any case this one that we have is already in perfect condition. According to me there is no need to take any other photographic images.
CDV:
Yes, but I wanted to say the blood deteriorates? The print becomes modified?
PB:
No, look I’m neither a doctor nor a biologist, nor anything else, don’t ask me this question.
CDV:
Now, turning to the conclusions, I’m interested in knowing how the results are defined. You have an opinion of probable identity on the basis of negative comparisons and I refer now to the two prints of Ms Knox that had been revealed by Luminol. But this actual concept of probable identity, which obviously is different to identity, can you tell me if it is in the scientific nomenclature? Whether it belongs to gradations of values, which are standards? Or else are they judgments that an expert makes?
PB:
No, they aren’t subjective judgements, these are references that in any case are in the scientific literature I…, no, they are things that are handed down in short, they are also used for attributing shoe prints and for everything else in short.
CDV:
Your colleague this morning told us about the methodologies to objectively make a comparison and therefore the various steps; he referred us to the rules that you have all adopted, he was mentioning [233] Camra (phonetic), Kennedy, Robbins, who are all important authors. Do these authors have these definitions in the end? Other than explaining how to calculate the width of a big toe, for example, in the end do they give any guidelines on how one can say: probable identity, identity, non-identity, likely identity? And I don’t know if there are other terms like these?
PB:
No, look, this was research that my colleague did and who had told me.
CDV:
Yes, but you have signed this report.
GCM:
Pardon me, Counsel, seeing that we have heard the two witnesses separately, and also the consultants therefore let’s take it into account, like we’ve also taken it into account for the other witness and consultant as listed in the Public Prosecutor’s witness list, let’s also take into account what he is telling us; that is it is likewise not useful to make the expert witness repeat, or else ask him about, about what he was expressly not himself dealing with, circumstances about which we have examined the other witness this morning. Please.
CDV:
In any case if I can have the answer. That is are there standards concerning these definitions?
GCM:
He’s told us that it is an aspect which he was involved in…
PB:
Yes, it was an aspect which he was involved in, therefore he told me the result of his research in broad outlines.

[234]

CDV:
Finally instead some reasoning with relation to the prints that have been attributed to Guede, the shoe prints, can you show us the slide relative to the planimetry of the furniture with the true locations where they had been found? Because I wanted to ask you, one thing that we hadn’t done with your colleague this morning, in particular with two prints, is it true that one – we’re talking of Rudy Guede – of the prints is at the entrance of the apartment facing towards the inside of the apartment? I only wanted confirmation of this.
PB:
Are we talking about these?
CDV:
Therefore we have to start from the, do you remember…
PB:
The prints attributed to the shoes?
CDV:
Yes, Guede’s. Is there one of them that is in proximity to the apartment entrance, facing into the apartment?
GCM:
That is in the direction of entrance.
PB:
At the front door, no…
GB:
Pardon me, there’s that one there in the ante-kitchen, there, in the little living room.
LG:
Can you point it out, please?
CDV:
Just one clarification, is it true that it is facing the inside of the apartment?

[235]

GCM:
That is the toe of this shoe…
PB:
Is facing towards the room, yes.
CDV:
Which room? That is the room…, in the hallway, towards this door here.
GCM:
The room indicated as Romanelli’s?
CDV:
No, it’s facing towards this door, therefore it’s facing the hallway.
PB:
Hallway.
CDV:
Towards the inside of the house towards the victim’s room?
PB:
Yes.
CDV:
Is it also true that there is a second one of them which is in front of the lounge and appears to have been positioned…?
GCM:
Pardon me, Counsel. but we were talking about the last print below, which is facing, you’re saying yes, towards…
CDV:
This one here.
MC:
It’s facing the lounge really.
GCM:
But the toe is towards…
MC:
The lounge.
PB:
Yes, it’s going towards the lounge, perhaps he wanted to pick something up from the lounge, this is something we can’t know,

[236]

GCM:
Though at the part of the lounge close to the door to Romanelli’s room. Is that so?
CDV:
It would have to be “Y”, “H” or “F” in the photographs.
PB:
I would say near the fridge, near the lounge and the fridge, it’s not really near Romanelli’s room.
MC:
But that green is the lounge, hey, that yellow…
PB:
This green is the lounge, this is the fridge, this it seems to me was a dining table, then after here there was the kitchen, the accessories, the sink, the stove and all the other stuff. Therefore the print is this one here and is pointing towards the lounge, in reality.
GCM:
Pointing towards the left, looking at the images?
PB:
Yes, it’s pointing slightly towards the lounge.
GCM:
Towards the left.
PB:
Yes, towards the left.
GCM:
For who is looking. Please.
PB:
Exactly.
MC:
There’s also another slide.
PB:
Ah, here it is here, “G”.
CDV:
“G”?
PB:
“G”.

[237]

CDV:
And going back to that slide again, in front of the lounge, that one there is it true that it is pointing towards Romanelli’s room?
PB:
“F”?
CDV:
I can’t see.
PB:
This one here? This one is the door to Romanelli’s room, which is here.
CDV:
Yes, it would have to be that one.
PB:
It’s here right in front of the lounge.
CDV:
Is that the one?
PB:
No, towards the outside.
CDV:
Towards the outside with respect to Romanelli’s room?
PB:
Let’s say in the exit direction.
CDV:
Although I see on the outside with respect to Romanelli’s room.
PB:
Exactly, in the exit direction from Romanelli’s room.
CDV:
In the exit direction from Romanelli’s room, not from the house.

[238]

PB:
But, this doesn’t prove that in any case he was in Romanelli’s room and was exiting, perhaps only maybe that he was standing there and doing a pirouette.
GCM:
We’re only interested in the photograph of the dimensions of the print.
CDV:
I have no other questions, thank you.

Knox Defence - Ghirga

GCM:
Please, Counsel.
LG:
Very very briefly. You have worked on, I’m talking of the typically female, as you call it, print on the pillow slip, I’m going back there.
PB:
Yes.
LG:
You have worked on photographic material for what regards the analysis of the print about which you have spoken. If I haven’t misunderstood one of his responses at the beginning of the testimony, he has worked on photographic material as regards the analysis of the same print; is that so? You have only worked on photographic material?
PB:
Yes.
LG:
Perfect. Then you’ve compared that print by means of the photo with the “ASICS” 37.5 one? Have I understood this?
PB:
Yes, the 37.5, I bought it exclusively for the purpose of trying to find out the dimensions.

[239]

LG:
Yes, I’ve understood this. I want to add: because you had no other material to compare with?
PB:
Yes.
LG:
But now then conclusion number 11 of the 8 April 2008 report, the first report you did with Dr Rinaldi, when you say that the print reproduced in the victim’s room, photo 105, is the one about which we have spoken multiple times, does not present congruencies with the shoes compared against. With which shoes did you compare?
PB:
With the shoes that had been seized from Ms Knox’s room and in Sollecito’s house, if I’m not mistaken.
LG:
In fact on page 26 of your first report the shoe is described, seized in Amanda Knox’s room, from her property. Therefore, question, have you compared photo 105 with Amanda’s shoe, to write that it has no analogy, then we don’t know what analogy actually means, because it’s another new term with respect to comparisons. Have you understood what I want to say? You’ve made a comparison, leaving aside the “ASICS”.
PB:
Yes, yes, with that type of shoe.
LG:
You’ve said that you’ve compared it with the “ASICS”, after a long search through the shops.
PB:
Eh.
LG:
Now you’re confirming that you’ve compared it with Amanda’s shoes?

[240]

PB:
With those shoes there, yes, yes.
LG:
And therefore you confirm obviously the conclusions that that print…
PB:
It’s not attributable to that type of shoe, that is to that shoe.
LG:
Exactly, it’s not attributable to that shoe. I will ask you one question, the President and the Court will permit me, since you’re saying there are brands of women’s tennis shoes where the heel is absolutely narrower than the sole, I know, because I’ve got children, because I look, there are women’s tennis shoes on the market where the heel widens with respect to the body, to the sole?
PB:
Well, certainly…
LG:
“Certainly” how?
PB:
Certainly yes.
LG:
Ah, certainly yes, exactly so.
PB:
And well, it’s obvious because…
LG:
And no, you’ve found one of them narrower!
PB:
Well, no, wait, wait…
LG:
Tell me, tell me.
MC:
He’s found it narrow like that one.
PB:
That type of shoe isn’t made…
LG:
But not like that one!

[241]

GCM:
Pardon me everyone, pardon me Counsel, we have heard the question…
LG:
It’s not like that one, he’s seen the heel!
GCM:
Pardon me, pardon me, let’s allow…
LG:
I have asked whether there are any women’s tennis shoes on the market where the heel widens with respect to the central body.
GCM:
The expert witness was in the process of responding. Please.
LG:
Certainly yes, he’s said.
GCM:
Pardon me, let’s allow him to finish the whole response. Please.
PB:
We can say that that is a walking shoe…
LG:
No, no.
GCM:
Pardon me, pardon me, please, please, finish up.
LG:
Eh yes, Mr President!
PB:
It’s a walking shoe, a shoe for physical work which can be`used as shoe for tennis…
LG:
Alright, thank you, thank you, thank you.
GCM:
No, no, pardon me, pardon me.
PB:
…or other sports, it ought to have a certain comfort and a grip on the ground that would give it a major efficiency in short. Therefore obviously for specific disciplines there’s a specific type of shoe; given that [242] the fact is there are tennis shoes, basketball shoes, shoes for other disciplines, running shoes, shoes to do all things possible in this world and therefore with different measurements, obviously.
GCM:
Please. The witness is also common to the Sollecito defence, therefore the Public Prosecutor and then the Sollecito defence.
FM:
And also to the civil parties.
GCM:
And also to the civil parties.

Public Prosecutor Dr Comodi

MC:
Now then, I also only want specifics, because it has been quite clear, but you, you’ve already said, to repeat, the measurement of that print, of the print of the shoe…
PB:
Woman’s
MC:
… that you define as a woman’s shoe, exactly, on the pillow slip, the one not attributed to the shoe let’s say belonging to Rudy Guede, or rather, that you then had the opportunity to compare with a shoe of Rudy Guede’s?
PB:
No, we’ve collected this type of shoe because…
MC:
Because there was also not a trace of Rudy Guede shoes, true?
PB:
Yes, there were…
MC:
There was only the box, right?
PB:
Yes, the “ASICS”.
MC:
Therefore you took only an analogous model. or rather the same.

[243]

PB:
Yes, only a model.
MC:
Let’s go back a bit, be patient, to that women’s shoe print, you took measurements before the comparisons or not?
PB:
I took them before comparisons.
MC:
Before comparisons and therefore you took measurements that, different to what was affirmed earlier and you weren’t able to remember, but we have rediscovered it, you have differentiated, between the narrower part and the wider part, page 25 where it is written: “with dimensions equal to 77 millimetres in length and approximately 46 millimetres in width, the outside profile is distinctly notable” etc etc. Then after a couple of lines: “it is possible to conclude on the basis of the reduced recoverable dimensions and above all because of the limited fullness of the heel, that the print is probably referable to a woman’s shoe; it can be seen in fact that the print, in the heel part, measures approximately 39 millimetres”. Therefore you, or rather you both, you and Dr Rinaldi, have made exactly the differentiation between the higher and the lower parts, as you have said earlier. Now then it would have made sense, in your merchandise research, after having ruled out compatibility of that print with the seized shoes, in the scope of the merchandise research, to acquire or in any case take for comparison a woman’s tennis shoe with a 60 centimetre wide heel?
PB:
No, obviously not.

[244]

MC:
There you are, exactly. Therefore you went looking for a shoe that had…
PB:
More or less those dimensions.
MC:
…on that same point the same dimensions.
PB:
Yes.
MC:
Are there, have you found on the market, I’ll ask the question the other way round, men’s shoes that on that point are 40 millimetres wide?
PB:
No, they’re much more comfortable.
MC:
You have said, in response to a question from the Sollecito defence, that you cannot rule out, correctly, just as Dr Rinaldi had also explained, that the print on the bathmat or the print also revealed…
PB:
With Luminol.
MC:
That’s right, with Luminol, that you had attributed it with that judgement that you had made to Raffaele Sollecito, that it could belong to another person with the same characteristics.
PB:
Let’s say the same characteristics, certainly, it’s obvious…
MC:
The same characteristics.
PB:
It’s the same topic…; please.

[245]

MC:
I will put this question to you: can you rule out that the print on the bathmat and the one revealed with Luminol are Rudy Guede’s?
PB:
Absolutely yes.
MC:
Can you rule out that the print on the bathmat and revealed by Luminol is Amanda Knox’s? Those two taken into consideration by the Sollecito defence, obviously.
PB:
Yes, obviously yes.
MC:
Also because precisely if there is someone in Papua who has the same print it would be difficult for it to interest us!
GB:
Although Mr President I don’t believe that these comments…
MC:
No, comments are made, everyone is making them, I’m making them too!
GB:
No, Papua doesn’t…
GCM:
Pardon me, please. In any case let’s avoid comments and stay with the procedural matter that is occupying us from time to time, the examination of the expert witness. Please.

Civil Party - Maresca

FM:
Thank you, Mr President. I am Counsellor Maresca for the civil parties. A couple of questions, a clarification on your work, how many years have you done this job?
PB:
Since February 1979, it’s about 30 years.

[246]

FM:
And can you tell us in these 30 years, more or less, how many prints comparisons have you done?
PB:
Ah, that’s a problem.
FM:
Approximately, more than 10,000, less than 100,000, I don’t know, you tell us the number.
PB:
Of identifications?
FM:
Yes.
PB:
Let’s say that approximately we’re talking between 5 and 10 thousand,
FM:
One last question, can you tell us about the shoe prints in the hallway that you recovered and compared, in short those then referred to Rudy Guede and the comparison with the “Nikes”, were they let’s say left in haematic substance?
PB:
Yes, everything, I think, haematic substance because in any case it was red material.
FM:
Thank you.
GCM:
Please.

Sollecito Defence - Bongiorno

GB:
Doctor, can you rule out that in the scope of the print left on the bathmat, the foot that effectively had left it could have been a foot much longer than Raffaele Sollecito’s?
PB:
But I frankly if I don’t have the identificatory element I cannot..., you can’t say one thing rather than another, that is each foot, each hand, [247] each finger or toe, each thing has its own characteristic; there are wide and narrow feet and wide and short feet and long and narrow feet, in short.
GB:
I am asking you: could it have been a longer foot than Raffaele Sollecito’s?
PB:
But I…, anything can be, it only needs a little imagination.
GB:
Why does it need a little imagination?
PB:
And if I don’t have the hee…, if I don’t have the heel, how do I do it?
GB:
I’m asking you: is it possible or you can rule it out?
PB:
Everything can be possible.
GB:
Thank you.

Sollecito Defence - Maori

LM:
Counsellor Maori. Inspector can you go to photo 104?
PB:
This one?
LM:
Yes. Now then if you move the cursor to the outermost edge, forward, more to the left…
PB:
To the left here?
LM:
No, in the middle, above the black mark, go up.
PB:
Ah, you want to see it illuminated?
LM:
If you go up and if you tell us…

[248]

PB:
This one?
LM:
A little up, there’s a line that crosses over, let’s say near to the black mark, outside of the external margin.
PB:
You want to know what it is?
LM:
Yes.
PB:
I don’t know.
LM:
But isn’t it a line relative to the shoe shape, which would cross over beyond the external margin?
PB:
And…
LM:
And therefore, how can you explain it?
PB:
But I haven’t explained it.
GCM:
Pardon me, Counsel, an explanation presupposes he knows what it is. Please.
LM:
Therefore you don’t know what this line could possibly relate to, whether to the shoe print, or else some other thing?
PB:
There wasn’t enough…, what I see in the photo I wrote there.
LM:
Yes.
PB:
Therefore if I haven’t written it there it means that I didn’t know what it might be.

[249]

GCM:
Therefore you’re not able to explain what…?
PB:
Absolutely not, it could be a little bit of dirt…
GCM:
A little bit of dirt it could be, but now we’re in the field of mere hypotheses.
PB:
… but it could be anything in short.
GCM:
Please Counsel.
LM:
I have no further questions.

President Massei

GCM:
Only two things, if you go back to the plan of the apartment.
PB:
Here it is.
GCM:
Those two last prints next to the green rectangle, they’ve been attributed to who, to Rudy Guede also?
PB:
Now then if I recall correctly, let’s say that those in the shape of feet have been attributed to the “Nikes”, while instead those with the dot, indicated solely by a letter, have been judged as not usable for comparison purposes, therefore they haven’t even been compared, because there are few elements useful for attribution.
GCM:
But these two prints near the green rectangle.
PB:
They would be “G” and “I”.
GCM:
Those were attributed, were they usable?
PB:
No.
GCM:
They weren’t usable?

[250]

PB:
No, I don’t believe so, that is I’ve used this methodology in short, but this one for orientation, although obviously…
GCM:
Pardon me, I wanted to ask, even though not being judged as usable, at any rate you could have seen their direction?
PB:
No, where there’s a dot I wasn’t able to see the direction.
GCM:
Why before were you saying where they were pointing?
PB:
Ah, the direction you mean?
GCM:
Yes.
PB:
Where there’s a dot I wasn’t able to see the direction because I wasn’t able to establish, the portions were so small that…
GCM:
And those last two in any case you weren’t able to attribute them.
PB:
The last two no, there are four, under “G” and “I”, this one here on the left corner and then there are these other two next to the fridge.
GCM:
You weren’t able to attribute them because they weren’t usable, they didn’t have useful marks.
PB:
They weren’t sufficiently…
GCM:
I wanted to also ask, on the basis of investigations carried out, taking account of usable prints, are you able to say how many people who either barefoot or in shoes had in any case left prints carrying traces of blood in the apartment? Independently of their attribution?
PB:
There were two people.

[251]

GCM:
Only two people?
PB:
Yes.
GCM:
Either in shoes or in bare feet?
PB:
Ah, also in bare feet?
GCM:
Either bare feet or in shoes, considering that we’re discussing prints with usable blood traces. How many people were there?
PB:
In practice it’s…
GCM:
Independently of the attribution? With certainty, if you can say so.
PB:
The woman’s shoe on the pillow slip, all the shoe prints, both on the pillow slip and revealed in the hallway are from two people, and then after the print in blood on the bathmat and the Luminol print there in front of Ms Knox’s room, in practice three persons.
GCM:
You are definitely saying that there are three different people who in any case must have left the blood-stained prints?
PB:
Yes.
GCM:
Only on this question, Counsel. Please.
GB:
The Luminol one?
PB:
Well, I presume that one’s also blood, in short.
GCM:
Pardon me, why do you presume?
PB:
Really, in short me not being an expert…

[252]

GCM:
Really, but you presume on the basis of what?
PB:
Because I know in general that in any case Luminol is used to reveal blood, therefore…
GCM:
In any case, let’s leave this Luminol trace out, how many people are there? Let’s not consider this trace…
PB:
Still three, it’s still three.
GCM:
Pardon me, Counsel, please.

Sollecito Defence - Bongiorno

GB:
You still consider it to be three people because you take into consideration the bathmat print which though you don’t know the length of?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
Not knowing the length, you can rule out that the person who left the print on the bathmat could in reality be one of the persons, maybe the one who left the shoe print on the pillow slip?
PB:
Look, to identify a print it isn’t necessary to have the complete entire print, just as to identify a person it’s not necessary to have all ten fingers like someone was saying for a long time; and to identify a person it’s not necessary that the finger be classifiable or something, I need only a portion of a print for identification, [253] speaking of fingerprints; and the same thing for shoe prints, for foot prints; therefore there’s no difference.
GB:
The person who left the print on the bathmat, do you know if they were male or female?
PB:
Certainly, unless they were a giant, in short.
GB:
Why, of what dimensions is this print?
PB:
It’s of 10 centimetres in width.
GB:
And the length?
PB:
Counsel, how can I tell you the length, I’ve been saying to you that I need only a few elements to identify a person, you’re returning me back again to the question…?
MC:
Pardon me, but these aren’t questions flowing from the President’s question, it seems to me, because if we don’t return to…
GB:
To the number of persons.
GCM:
On the number of persons, only on this, independently of the attribution.
GB:
Independently of the attribution, how can you definitely rule out that that print does not belong to someone else?

[254]

GCM:
That is to someone else who left other bloodstained prints.
GB:
Right.
PB:
Seeing that in any case there were the shoe prints there on the thing, one referable to the right shoe revealed on the pillow slip and one referable to the left shoe, left on almost every surface of the apartment, I presume that in any case that one was wearing shoes and then after the one who left the print on the bathmat wasn’t.
GB:
Therefore there are two of them.
PB:
I presume there are two of them.
GB:
Two.
PB:
And the third is the woman’s shoe print on the pillow slip.


GCM:
We can therefore discharge the witness, you may go.

The witness is dismissed.

President: The report is acquired. …

(extensive discussion on setting the calendar of future hearing dates then follows)