A subsequent analysis carried out by inspector Ippolito and inspector Mainieri of the scientific police department of the Direzione Centrale Anticrimine della Polizia di Stato had led to more significant conclusions, in the sense that through the comparison and the superimposition of the imprint and the photography of the shoe sole had been possible to arrive to a judgment of correspondence, motivated by the observation that the examined traces substantially coincided with the design (model and measure) of the Nike sole, related to the seized shoe. [end p 25] In such sense it was carried out a measurements of the diameter of the inner circular trace, of the dimensions of the empty spaces between the circular signs left on the pavement and of the dimension comprised between the ends of the circulars signs, observing, every time, a gap regarding the sole of the shoe of a single millimeter, clearly justifiable in reason of the effect of expansion determined by laying the foot on the floor. Through a proper advising, assigned to an expert, Sollecito's defense has contested the reliability of the verification, coming to the conclusion that, on the contrary, the observed imprint would not correspond to the sole of the shoe of the suspect. Beyond a methodological problem, regarding the use of determined reproduction instruments for the comparison of the images, it has been attempted in particular to assert that there were not compatibility signs. Among these, it has been underlined the lack of outline in the line correspondent to the edge of the shoe, the lack of a trace that justifies the release of an imprint reproducing some kind of "y" turned upside down, and the presence of 3 complete concentric circles at the center of the illustration. But actually, observing the imprint in the original photographs exhibited by the prosecutor during the hearing, it can be noted the amazing correspondence between the signs and the designs of the sole. However it does not seem at all that three entire circles are outlined in the central part, and also it doesn't observe that the border is not traced, having estimate the impact of the shoe on the ground and having to consider that the line assumed as a parameter during the comparison results to be the internal one on the traced edge. Regarding the further point it can be relieved how the observed sign could correspond to a corpuscle of any kind insinuated in the interstice of one of the circles. It is hardly the case to consider how incongruous appears the not precise correspondence found in the superimposed of the left sole on the trace in the point situated at the top right, where the defensive advising had found a convergence of lines, since is obvious that the imprint on the blood has produced a dragging effect, even if modest, probably in the moment in which the foot had been moved. Instead, it results very meaningful the match between the measures, in particular of the one of 87 cm regarding the space between the margins of the circular signs, that, more than the others seems to lead back to a shoe of the same size. All of this, it has to be said with clarity, does not show a sure proof that the imprint had been impress by the shoe of Sollecito. On this purpose it would have been necessary to find true distinctive signs of this sole, but this is not happened. Moreover it has to be stigmatized that the element deserves to be associated with a comparative verification of analogous soles of various sizes. [end p 26]