[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 9/21/00
Time: 5:42:00 PM
Charlie wrote:
"In a video from Geraldo's shows during the civil trial, I found the print on the second step in a photo that they showed. **** I have read some much...."stuff"...about the Bundy footprint photos in this discussion group that I feel obliged to put in my two cents.
first, and most importantly, since I can not see the 'exhibits' for myself, I simply must reserve judgement aobut what they are supposed to show. All I have seen are descriptions that I can not even understand without so pictorials to give it context.
So even so I am in no position to simply reject the assertions of what these photos show out-of-hand, I nevertheless must say that I am highly skeptical both of the descriptions and what they allegedly show and prove.
This is because of what is know as "observer bias"; in essence the old saying that "People see what they want to see."
In this connections I am reminded of Percival Lowell's seeing the "cnals" on Mars, and how several others saw them, though other astronomers did not, and finally space probes proved once and for all that they simply never existed. You can also look up the phenomena of 'N-Rays'. The anecdotes from PROFESSIONAL scientists derived from 'observer bias' are numerous and infamous.
Now I will tell you why Charlie seems to be suffering from the same phenomena... **** "It is dead center of the second step. And I mean that EXACTLY. Not only is it in the center from side to side but center from back to back.
"How wide (deep) do you think those steps are? **** there is no reason to guess. The tiles of the front walk where Nicole's body is are 11 inches on a side. This will give you the width of the staircase. The depth of each step can be figured from overhead shots and from diagrams. My guess is Dick Wagner could tell you what you want to know in two seconds, or you can just figure it out for yourself. **** "This print is JUST a heel print --dead center. If there was any part of the other part of the shoe showing, I couldn't see it. Just the heel. And it was several inches in from the edge of the step. **** Here's where I must insist that Charlie is seeing things wrong, for what she is describing is an impossible object, whether you consider that 'heel print' to be a genuine artifact left by the murderer in the course of the murders OR soemthing planted as a 'red herring'.
And here is why: In order to make the heel print in the manner described either (1) someone actually wearing the shoe had somehow bent his toes into a ninety degree angle with the heel -- iow, he broke his foot in half, or (2) someone not actually wearing the shoe dipped the heel in blood and used it as a 'rubber stamp' to plant that soleless heel print.
I react to Charlie's assertion as if she had said that she spotted footprints on the side of the building going from the walkway to the roof. In such a case, you would think that I'd conclude that those prints were planted. No, I'd be forced to conclude that Charlie was mistaken about what she said she saw.
Because such a set of prints would be (1) difficult to plant, and (2) pointless, because they would be so obviously phony. All that the perpetrator would do would show the police that someone was going to a lot of trouble to fool them -- which is not something you'd think the perpetrator would do.
In like manner, because a soleless heel print is impossible to produce by a real walker, the cops would immediately conclude it was a phony plant, and would thus be tipped off that the perpetrator was going to great efforts to try to fool them. Which is to say : PLANTING AN IMPOSSIBLE OBJECT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. **** "Is there even room for a grown man's shoe (much less a size 12) to 'fit" that way. Don't think so.
"Also, anybody stepping up to the second step is more likely to put their toe down, not their heel. More likely to catch the top half of the shoe on the edge of the step than the heel in the center of the step. charlie No wonder we didn't "see" this one. **** That's absolutely right, Charlie. Which is why I am saying that you are not really seeing what you think you are seeing in that photo.
Last changed: September 21, 2000