Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

Smoke gets in your eyes (luminol as a presumptive test)

Castro and Coyle wrote, "For this reason [false positives], anti-human hemoglobin tests (e.g. Ouchterlony, HemaTrace) to confirm species of origin are performed as a subsequent confirmatory test on any samples suspected to be blood [26]. A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood...Luminol has been found to react with copper ions, copper compounds, iron compounds, cobalt ions, potassium permanganate, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), plant peroxidases (such as fresh potato juice), metals, some cleaners, soil, and cigarette smoke [11, 32, 33]." (highlighting mine)

 

[Desert Fox]

Castro and Coyle wrote, "For this reason [false positives], anti-human hemoglobin tests (e.g. Ouchterlony, HemaTrace) to confirm species of origin are performed as a subsequent confirmatory test on any samples suspected to be blood [26]. A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood...Luminol has been found to react with copper ions, copper compounds, iron compounds, cobalt ions, potassium permanganate, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), plant peroxidases (such as fresh potato juice), metals, some cleaners, soil, and cigarette smoke [11, 32, 33]." (highlighting mine)

That is new to me and in Italy 32.8% of males and 19.2% of female smoke
Compared to the US, 20.1% of males and 14.5% of females smoke

 

[griffinmill]

Here were my questions (asked via email):

"1. Is DNA profiling not a confirmatory test for blood, and if so, why not? The only reason that I can think of is that one might detect DNA from any tissue.

2. If these tests (luminol, TMB, and DNA profiling) were the only tests done, what should one conclude about the luminol-positive footprints?"

Dr. Lednev indicated in his email that he and Kelly Virkler had discussed the matter and that this was a joint answer:

"-TMB can give a false negative if the blood is too aged or diluted, and other substances like acids or reduction compounds can interfere.

-On the other hand, Luminol can give a false positive with things such as bleach, Drano, and plant products. This would explain why there was no DNA found.

-Some luminol formulations can also damage DNA, so this might be a factor.

-So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.

It is correct to assume that DNA profiling is not a confirmatory test for blood because it can be found in so many other things. Just confirming the presence of the victim or suspect's DNA has absolutely no bearing on what type of tissue or fluid it is. There could have been skin cells scattered in a pile of ketchup that would match a person's DNA, but that doesn't make it blood. However, as outlined in our review (Forensic Sci. International 2009), there are several new mRNA based tests that CAN specify a body fluid based on certain markers, and some can even simultaneously compare DNA profiles."

This is nice, even a step forward. The bit about TMB being falsely negative in the presence of dilution and other factors is interesting, as is the information about false positives of luminol.

But again, we need the full context of the interview, otherwise we're left with only your characterization of V&L on a single point.

No one at this site would ever accept a PIP expert report if they could only read a selected quote. For that matter, no one on either side would. So when the full interview is available, I'll be interested to read it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That's all there is; there aint no more

But again, we need the full context of the interview, otherwise we're left with only your characterization of V&L on a single point.

No one at this site would ever accept a PIP expert report if they could only read a selected quote. For that matter, no one on either side would. So when the full interview is available, I'll be interested to read it.

Griffinmill,

These two questions and the response I quoted tonight (all verbatim) were the interview. Dr. Lednev did say at the very end of his email, "I hope this helps." Hope this helps.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is nice, even a step forward. The bit about TMB being falsely negative in the presence of dilution and other factors is interesting, as is the information about false positives of luminol.

But again, we need the full context of the interview, otherwise we're left with only your characterization of V&L on a single point.

No one at this site would ever accept a PIP expert report if they could only read a selected quote. For that matter, no one on either side would. So when the full interview is available, I'll be interested to read it.

"Crime Scene Investigations: The Forensic Technition's Field Guide" by Tina Young and P.J. Ortmeier, Page 193

"Luminol, Bluestar, and Flouresceine are used for presumptive blood testing only. The tests are not confirmatory for blood. The chemicals can produce false positive reactions when placed in contact with some other chemicals and certain organic (e.g., plant) materials."

I would argue that statement is pretty definitive.

 

[Draca]

I have been reading a lot about Robin Williams the last couple of days, and I couldn't help but read about about how his daughter as given up social media because of trolls who can't stop themselves from being cruel.

I have to wonder if Amanda and Raffaele feel the same way. I know that a lot of these idiots who write these things are people who's lives are pathetic and only in being cruel can they escape their own lives. It makes you wonder just how bad their lives are that makes them act so horribly?

It's their own choice. They could just as well use their time and energy to help the world in any number of ways: causes, art, writing. If their personal lives suck they could escape into good just as well as bad.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Fluorescein is similar to luminol

"Crime Scene Investigations: The Forensic Technition's Field Guide" by Tina Young and P.J. Ortmeier, Page 193

"Luminol, Bluestar, and Flouresceine are used for presumptive blood testing only. The tests are not confirmatory for blood. The chemicals can produce false positive reactions when placed in contact with some other chemicals and certain organic (e.g., plant) materials."

I would argue that statement is pretty definitive.

Thank you for this reference. I would say that this statement (from Castro and Coyle) is also pretty definitive: "A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood."

 

[js202]

If he were honest, with two swift posts from Chris_Halkides and Desert Fox, griffinmill should be struck mute. Admittedly, I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[js202]

Thank you for this reference. I would say that this statement (from Castro and Coyle) is also pretty definitive: "A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood."

I am awaiting from a certain prolific PGP poster a comparison of Castro & Coyle to Conti & Vecchiotti in 3, 2, 1...

 

[acbytesla]

Griffinmill,

These two questions and the response I quoted (all verbatim) were the entire interview.

There really isn't a lot more for them to say. In other words, they don't know what the Luminol reacted to but it is probably not blood but without more information, this is as definitive as they can be.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thank you for this reference. I would say that this statement (from Castro and Coyle) is also pretty definitive: "A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood."

I got a copy of the book because my roommate is going to college and they are thinning out their books, preparing to replace them with electronic books. It is the standard training book they used for the class.

 

[griffinmill]

Griffinmill,

These two questions and the response I quoted were the entire interview.

Based just on the specific questions you asked, V&L's answers were more detailed than they could have been respective to Knox's case. It still seems like cherrypicking, unless your very first question was, "Is DNA profiling not a confirmatory test for blood, and if so, why not? The only reason that I can think of is that one might detect DNA from any tissue?"

Just reprint the entire email exhange from the banal hello's to the questions to the ansers to the thanks for everythings. Without reading that, I don't see how anyone could take your characterizations of their feelings seriously.

 

[griffinmill]

If he were honest, with two swift posts from Chris_Halkides and Desert Fox, griffinmill should be struck mute. Admittedly, I'm not holding out much hope.

Why would you not want to read an entire interview from experts who were quoted?

Would you accept a PGP quote from an expert where you couldn't read the entire interview?

 

[js202]

Why would you not want to read an entire interview from experts who were quoted?

Would you accept a PGP quote from an expert where you couldn't read the entire interview?

I remember the last time you were here you never answered the question put to you as to whether or not it is reasonable that Stefanoni has failed to release all the EDFs. All the experts who have observed the case against Knox and Sollecito and found it wanting seem to agree that this context would be useful. What is your opinion?

And Chris_Halkides has told you that this was his full exchange with Lednev. Do you believe him?

 

[griffinmill]

I remember the last time you were here you never answered the question put to you as to whether or not it is reasonable that Stefanoni has failed to release all the EDFs. All the experts who have observed the case against Knox and Sollecito and found it wanting seem to agree that this context would be useful. What is your opinion?

And Chris_Halkides has told you that this was his full exchange with Lednev. Do you believe him?

You're not ansering the question.

And no, Halkides has obviously not released the full interview.

 

[Grinder]

As someone here has been saying for years the TMB test being negative doesn't mean that the footprints weren't left in very diluted blood. The blood at the 1:1,000,000 ratio could have been left there months or even longer. Since the footprints don't match Amanda, they are only compatible, and DNA can't be dated, the prints are of very little value. In that the substance wasn't determined to be blood with any confirming test nor was the substance positively tested for MK's DNA it is not precise.

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item's] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability. [The judge] must, finally, proceed to the final synthesis, ascertaining whether the items under examination are consistent [concordanti], i.e. whether they can be linked to a single cause or a single effect, so that the existence or nonexistence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.​

Glad it has been settled that TMB is not as sensitive as Luminol.

 

[anglolawyer]

Based just on the specific questions you asked, V&L's answers were more detailed than they could have been respective to Knox's case. It still seems like cherrypicking, unless your very first question was, "Is DNA profiling not a confirmatory test for blood, and if so, why not? The only reason that I can think of is that one might detect DNA from any tissue?"

Just reprint the entire email exhange from the banal hello's to the questions to the ansers to the thanks for everythings. Without reading that, I don't see how anyone could take your characterizations of their feelings seriously.

How would the banal hello's (sic) and thanks for everythings make any difference to what Chris posted? Please explain.

 

[Kaosium]

Why would you not want to read an entire interview from experts who were quoted?

Would you accept a PGP quote from an expert where you couldn't read the entire interview?

Any contention any of them made on a scientific subject I would try to corroborate to verify it. That's simple to do, there's plenty of literature on the subject, a fair amount of it linked here.

An 18 page article was posted today, why don't you read it and see if you can find corroboration (or refutation) of what Drs Virkler and Ledev said?

Or...why don't you e-mail them yourself and conduct your own 'interview?'

 

[griffinmill]

How would the banal hello's (sic) and thanks for everythings make any difference to what Chris posted? Please explain.

For the simple reason that every interview should be recorded in its full context. It's bizarre you would ask if you are truly a lawyer.

At the very least, it should be as comprehensive as the Balding interview to take seriously. Do you disagree?

 

[griffinmill]

Any contention any of them made on a scientific subject I would try to corroborate to verify it. That's simple to do, there's plenty of literature on the subject, a fair amount of it linked here.

An 18 page article was posted today, why don't you read it and see if you can find corroboration (or refutation) of what Drs Virkler and Ledev said?

Or...why don't you e-mail them yourself and conduct your own 'interview?'

Why should I have to email them when Halkides can corroborate? I'll ignore the other hocus pocus.