Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Thats a little more nuanced than what I had in mind. I just meant that she's never right about anything, and she's full of crap. And a bad person.

Oh right. Mach will be along to disagree and to tell us she is a paragon of the police service who would never dream of scratching cars or hitting people, incapable of forming a bat-**** crazy theory of what happened and then covering her ass for years afterwards when it turned out to be nonsense.

 

[Machiavelli]

With the sensitivity of TMB, you are writing garbage. If you are testing below the threshold of a few dozen cells, you are not really looking at anything. TMB is used as a presumptive and so is TMB. If you fail the TMB test, odds are extremely high that you have nothing.

Now, even if a presumed sample passes both a presumptive luminol and TMB, it still has to be confirmed as human blood. Every manual on basic forensics tells you that. This was done in the lab but now there is a test which can be done in the field known as Hematrace (and it was available in 2007.)

Besides, I am sure you have heard of the term umber. It is a mineral containing iron oxide and manganese oxide. It just happen to trigger a strong luminol reaction because of its iron oxide. Guess what umber is named after, the region of Umbia. Perugia just happens to be the capital of Umbria. Umber is in the soils so anybody with wet feet will likely leave luminol tracks just from that. As a result, in Perugia, luminol tracks are probably less valuable than they are elsewhere.

No. The sensitivity of TMB in practice is in the magnitude of 500 erythrocytes/microliter. Far more than a dozen cells. And it is indirect.
Sorry, you cannot get around the fact that TMB is far less sensitive than luminol and less specific, and reacts to same substances.
If there are common reactive substances in the environment those substances should be found in many other instances within the same context. For example if there is metal oxide /salts like rust solution you will not find it just in footprints. Which was not our case.
The specific instance of luminol footprints is not just about a substance btw, it is also their physical distribution (the dynamic that produced them) with their being isolated and not in a trail, their shape and size that makes them belong to two different individuals, one of them apparently a man compatible with Solkecito's foot; and above all, the fact that they were found in a context in which footprints with identical features that were proven to be in diluted blood were also found.
Yet, going back to the argument that was TMB, which is independent from those considerations, the statement that a negative TMB test would mean it is "more likely not blood" is a false statement. Such a statement would be backed only by the existence of a big number of common substances with the property of being reactive to luminol and not to TMB, at same and common concentration. Such substances do not exist.

 

[js202]

No. The sensitivity of TMB in practice is in the magnitude of 500 erythrocytes/microliter. Far more than a dozen cells. And it is indirect.
Sorry, you cannot get around the fact that TMB is far less sensitive than luminol and less specific, and reacts to same substances.
If there are common reactive substances in the environment those substances should be found in many other instances within the same context. For example if there is metal oxide /salts like rust solution you will not find it just in footprints. Which was not our case.
The specific instance of luminol footprints is not just about a substance btw, it is also their physical distribution (the dynamic that produced them) with their being isolated and not in a trail, their shape and size that makes them belong to two different individuals, one of them apparently a man compatible with Solkecito's foot; and above all, the fact that they were found in a context in which footprints with identical features that were proven to be in diluted blood were also found.
Yet, going back to the argument that was TMB, which is independent from those considerations, the statement that a negative TMB test would mean it is "more likely not blood" is a false statement. Such a statement would be backed only by the existence of a big number of common substances with the property of being reactive to luminol and not to TMB, at same and common concentration. Such substances do not exist.

What are your professional scientific merits which qualify you to proffer this gibberish?

 

[anglolawyer]

No. The sensitivity of TMB in practice is in the magnitude of 500 erythrocytes/microliter. Far more than a dozen cells. And it is indirect.
Sorry, you cannot get around the fact that TMB is far less sensitive than luminol and less specific, and reacts to same substances.
If there are common reactive substances in the environment those substances should be found in many other instances within the same context. For example if there is metal oxide /salts like rust solution you will not find it just in footprints. Which was not our case.
The specific instance of luminol footprints is not just about a substance btw, it is also their physical distribution (the dynamic that produced them) with their being isolated and not in a trail, their shape and size that makes them belong to two different individuals, one of them apparently a man compatible with Solkecito's foot; and above all, the fact that they were found in a context in which footprints with identical features that were proven to be in diluted blood were also found.
Yet, going back to the argument that was TMB, which is independent from those considerations, the statement that a negative TMB test would mean it is "more likely not blood" is a false statement. Such a statement would be backed only by the existence of a big number of common substances with the property of being reactive to luminol and not to TMB, at same and common concentration. Such substances do not exist.

So Stefanoni was wrong when she testified to the contrary? The testimony was quoted here recently and has been posted repeatedly.

 

[js202]

So Stefanoni was wrong when she testified to the contrary? The testimony was quoted here recently and has been posted repeatedly.

As you keenly mentioned, in guilter-world, Stefanoni is only competent and correct when she proffers an opinion which would tend to support guilt. When her opinions tend to absolve, she is as fallible as the rest of us. Excepting Machiavelli, of course.

 

[Diocletus]

For example if there is metal oxide /salts like rust solution you will not find it just in footprints.

Oh, you mean like Umber? Where is Perugia located again? Oh, that's right--Umbria.

 

[Diocletus]

The specific instance of luminol footprints is not just about a substance btw, it is also their physical distribution (the dynamic that produced them) with their being isolated and not in a trail, their shape and size that makes them belong to two different individuals, one of them apparently a man compatible with Solkecito's foot; and above all, the fact that they were found in a context in which footprints with identical features that were proven to be in diluted blood were also found.

I'm sure its some crap that Napoleoni and her henchman stepped in and tracked around while they were pillaging the cottage unsupervised on Nov. 6. It's the same visit that explains the keys hidden in the hallway and the "contamination" of the bra clasp and the knife. And generally the transformation of the cottage into a pigsty.

 

[Machiavelli]

So Stefanoni was wrong when she testified to the contrary? The testimony was quoted here recently and has been posted repeatedly.

Please, let's drop these tricks. We are talking about what Plaingale addressed, we are talking about hypothetical substances that would react to luminol and not to TMB. The point must be restricted to this set of substances: Luminol reactive ones. Not what Stefanoni was talking about.

 

[Machiavelli]

What are your professional scientific merits which qualify you to proffer this gibberish?

What are your professional scientific merits that qualify to call it gibberish?

 

[Diocletus]

What are your professional scientific merits that qualify to call it gibberish?

He's right, js. I think it might have been jive, not gibberish.

 

[anglolawyer]

Please, let's drop these tricks. We are talking about what Plaingale addressed, we are talking about hypothetical substances that would react to luminol and not to TMB. The point must be restricted to this set of substances: Luminol reactive ones. Not what Stefanoni was talking about.

No tricks, Machiavelli. Stefanoni said if TMB was negative you could be sure it was not blood. That (or her incompetence) would explain why she carried out no confirmatory tests. What really needs to be explained is why you are still going on about luminol. The answer must be that your reasoning is at the same level as Massei's and some of the more foolish posters here who think that, because there was a lot of blood nearby, all positive luminol hits must be blood and that mere osmotic plausibility is the appropriate scientific standard. If this were the correct approach there would have been no need to conduct luminol testing at all since the presence of blood not visible to the naked eye could be inferred from other incriminating facts like the shower and the fake burglary etc

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the limit of detection with TMB

No. The sensitivity of TMB in practice is in the magnitude of 500 erythrocytes/microliter. Far more than a dozen cells. And it is indirect.

No, Tagliabracci's testimony implied it was 5 RBC's per microliter, and some time ago I reproduced this calculation elsewhere. See also this link and this link. Other references available upon request.

 

[Machiavelli]

On the TMB test properties, I anticipate Chris Halkides will post an answer with some quote from some handbook (probably a non-source like those manuals quoted by Vecchiotti), possibly mentioning "protocols" instead of research, or maybe he will paraphrase and cite research conclusions that do not address the point, such as luminol false positives etc. I say this in advance expecting so because this is Prof.Halkides' modus operandi.

 

[MDDVS]

On the TMB test properties, I anticipate Chris Halkides will post an answer with some quote from some handbook (probably a non-source like those manuals quoted by Vecchiotti), possibly mentioning "protocols" instead of research, or maybe he will paraphrase and cite research conclusions that do not address the point, such as luminol false positives etc. I say this in advance expecting so because this is Prof.Halkides' modus operandi.

Yes, I agree that your assertions are very well supported by loads of good, relevant references.

 

[Bill Williams]

Supercalifragilistic,

I have read portions of themurderofmeredithkercher, and what I found were statements about forensics that were either misleading or outright wrong. For example, I explained here several threads ago why their discussion of YSTR results was highly misleading. They also posted a photo of a knife that they had misidentified, to give you a second example. Perhaps you would care to defend their positions in these matters, seeing as you are holding up this "wiki" as a source of supposedly good information.

Is this the knife where they say Stefanoni's scratches/striations are visible? If so, they should read the Massei report from 2010, where Massei quotes Stefanoni that they were not visible in photos, and only under certain, restricted lighting conditions - which no one else could replicate.

 

[MDDVS]

Although those blobs are obviously not blood and were never proven to be human or to be connected with Meredith (by DNA for example), it actually doesn't matter in the end because everyone can see the picture of a scientific policeman stepping in a pool of blood.

 

[Numbers]

On the TMB test properties, I anticipate Chris Halkides will post an answer with some quote from some handbook (probably a non-source like those manuals quoted by Vecchiotti), possibly mentioning "protocols" instead of research, or maybe he will paraphrase and cite research conclusions that do not address the point, such as luminol false positives etc. I say this in advance expecting so because this is Prof.Halkides' modus operandi.

Machiavelli is apparently not a scientist or engineer. Or if he is or has been, one in whose education and experience "handbooks", "manuals","protocols", and "research" are all foreign concepts.

Technical handbooks - such as the well-known CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the Merck Index - report in summary form the results of research.

 

[Wattson]

On the TMB test properties, I anticipate Chris Halkides will post an answer with some quote from some handbook (probably a non-source like those manuals quoted by Vecchiotti), possibly mentioning "protocols" instead of research, or maybe he will paraphrase and cite research conclusions that do not address the point, such as luminol false positives etc. I say this in advance expecting so because this is Prof.Halkides' modus operandi.

Why do you suppose they wasted their time with the TMB tests? Huh Mach? You would think with their vast budget woes they wouldn't be wasting their time and resources on such folly. You are a straight up liar.

 

[Numbers]

BTW...There is a typo in my earlier posting with the forensic lab summary. {Placed there intentionally to see if anyone was actually paying attention, as my teachers used to say.}

The date for Run 551 should read "11/29/07".

 

[Diocletus]

On the TMB test properties, I anticipate Chris Halkides will post an answer with some quote from some handbook (probably a non-source like those manuals quoted by Vecchiotti), possibly mentioning "protocols" instead of research, or maybe he will paraphrase and cite research conclusions that do not address the point, such as luminol false positives etc. I say this in advance expecting so because this is Prof.Halkides' modus operandi.

There you have it, Prof. Halkides. Don't even try to reference any handbooks, manuals, protocols or research. Italian logic is impervious.