Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

I always thought Florence was over rated other than the famous domed cathedral which I admire more for it's engineering than it's beauty.

Hm. I find Florence stunningly beautiful, and love its food, as well. Of course, presumably as an adjunct to its poor economy, all of Italy seems to be riddled with graffiti at the moment, which does no aesthetic favors to any of its great cities.

 

[kwill]

Mach: luminol is far more sensitive and also more specific than TMB.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

manganese and other transition metal ions

Umber is pretty likely as well. . . . . The area is known for its umber deposits and contains iron oxide.

Manganese ions are another false positive for some presumptive tests for blood.

 

[Desert Fox]

Manganese is another false positive for some presumptive tests for blood.

I know in some cases, you can tell the spectrum which I though might preclude manganese.

 

[MDDVS]

Umber is pretty likely as well. . . . . The area is known for its umber deposits and contains iron oxide.

Yes, exactly. The main point is that without a confirmatory test there's no way to know.

 

[Samson]

You already conceded that you won't acknowledge any verdict from any source if it implies that Knox is guilty, you wouldn't acknowledge even the ECHR.

Machiavelli, there is no future for any court that implies Knox is guilty, any such court is going to be proved disreputable when the world's silent majority is acquainted with the science that discusses the errors in the prosecution's assertions. It is not certain when this will be resolved, because these processes can take decades. Take refuge in the success Mignini's hoax enjoys meantime. Mignini needs people like you to die in a semblence of peace.

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli, there is no future for any court that implies Knox is guilty, any such court is going to be proved disreputable when the world's silent majority is acquainted with the science that discusses the errors in the prosecution's assertions. It is not certain when this will be resolved, because these processes can take decades. Take refuge in the success Mignini's hoax enjoys meantime. Mignini needs people like you to die in a semblence of peace.

I can also never accept a guilty verdict. I don't think it is arrogance, but common sense, logic and history. There have been countless wrongful convictions in probably every nation on earth. Mistakes do happen. But what does seem almost universal is the denial by prosecutors and judges that they may have made any mistakes. This is just as true in Memphis as it is in Italy.

The evidence in this case is a joke. About the only good evidence ever implicating Amanda and Raffaele turned out to actually implicate Rudy. Had those shoe prints actually matched Raffaele's shoes, I'm sure I would be a guilter. That is when the Perugian authorities should have owned up to their error and released both Amanda and Raffaele with sincere apologies. But they failed Amanda, Raffaele, Italy, Meredith and themselves. They lacked the emotional and intellectual integrity to reassess the evidence.

That is the real shame they should feel. Not the original mistake.

 

[Numbers]

I can also never accept a guilty verdict. I don't think it is arrogance, but common sense, logic and history. There have been countless wrongful convictions in probably every nation on earth. Mistakes do happen. But what does seem almost universal is the denial by prosecutors and judges that they may have made any mistakes. This is just as true in Memphis as it is in Italy.

The evidence in this case is a joke. About the only good evidence ever implicating Amanda and Raffaele turned out to actually implicate Rudy. Had those shoe prints actually matched Raffaele's shoes, I'm sure I would be a guilter. That is when the Perugian authorities should have owned up to their error and released both Amanda and Raffaele with sincere apologies. But they failed Amanda, Raffaele, Italy, Meredith and themselves. They lacked the emotional and intellectual integrity to reassess the evidence.

That is the real shame they should feel. Not the original mistake.

Because Italian judicial procedures theoretically allow a series of never-ending appeals in a murder trial, there may actually never be a final guilty or not guilty verdict in this case.

Some Italian judges and prosecutors may not want the main part of this travesty to ever be examined by the ECHR, at least not during their lifetimes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach: luminol is far more sensitive and also more specific than TMB.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

Because the scientific literature, that I had quoted already, more than once in the past, says so.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, there is no future for any court that implies Knox is guilty, any such court is going to be proved disreputable when the world's silent majority is acquainted with the science that discusses the errors in the prosecution's assertions. It is not certain when this will be resolved, because these processes can take decades. Take refuge in the success Mignini's hoax enjoys meantime. Mignini needs people like you to die in a semblence of peace.

As far as I know Mignini doesn't need anything.

And Knox is guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your argumentation on the matter of Luminol and TMB testing as it applies to the Meredith Kercher murder case is self-contradictory and idiotic. Full stop. In your goading of Professor Chris Halkides - a full Professor in the sciences with a PhD from a fine and competitive university better than anything Italy has to offer - you demonstrate the wisdom of the likes of Supercalifragilistic hewing to the prattle of Ergon over the experience and expertise of Dr. Peter Gill. You may fool yourself with such abject nonsense, but rest assured that no one capable of an inkling of ordered and rational thought is so fooled. You should seriously consider how insulting it is that you incessantly waste thoughtful people's time with the same warmed over shtick.

How's that for sticking to the topic?

When you've finished your rethoric rant and taken a breath, call me. We will have a chance to get to back the topic.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Normal blood count is about 5 x 10 ¹² / litre. i.e. 5 x 10 ⁶ / microlitre. The sensitivity of TMB from "Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008;53 (3):687–689" is 1:5x10⁴ that is 1 x 10² / microlitre or 100 RBC / microlitre. A comparison of Luminol and other tests including TMB (haemastix) in J Forensic Sci 2007;52(1):102–109 report sensitivity for both as 1:10⁵. That is 50 RBC/microlitre.

The problem is one can stand in other things than blood. The luminol positive TMB negative marks which show no visible blood stain do not show sufficient detail for positive identification. What we do know is that Knox was present in the flat post murder and did walk around in wet bare feet, thus the Luminol positive stains might be innocently produced by Knox standing in dilute blood. More likely I suspect as others have said an alternative substance was trod in. The other problem is that the test was not done until 18 Dec. A lot of tracking up and down had been done by the. Finally as can be seen from looking at the photos there is Luminol positive material on the ruler and the boots of the forensic scientists, perhaps since they are contaminated with Luminol positive material they were present at the time of the murder, or perhaps this is non blood fluorescence.

 

[AmyStrange]

Only four people know absolutely and definitely who is really guilty here...

-

As far as I know Mignini doesn't need anything.

And Knox is guilty.

-

Mach, when exactly did you decide Raffaele and Amanda were guilty?

I myself thought they were guilty from the very beginning, but now after looking at all the evidence, I find it highly improbable. If you want to believe that they are absolutely and definitely guilty without any doubt what so ever, that's your privilege, but what that says to me is that you are operating from confirmation bias and not because you have critically thought this through.

I myself have some doubt as to whether Rudy is absolutely and definitely guilty, but there is definitely more evidence that he was there when Meredith died than there is that Raffaele and Amanda were there.

The only people who know absolutely and definitely for sure who is guilty are Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda, and Meredith. Anyone else who says anything different is merely speculating, and that includes me, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

I will try to be more clear. I will repeat the first 2 or 3 paragraphs from my post and highlight the questions. Then I will restate the questions.



Questions restated:

1. What is the constitutional justification for including "judicial facts" or findings from a Fast-Track trial [Rudy Guede's trial] in an adversarial trial [of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito]? Knox and Sollecito had no representation at Guede's trial. (Use of such "judicial facts" or findings in an adversarial trial appear contrary to at least Clauses (sentences) 5, 7, and 8 of Article 111.)

A justification is expressed by Sentence 29 of 2009 of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional sentence that decides about compatibility of art. 238bis Penal Procedure Code with art. 111 of Constitution):

http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2009&numero=29

The art. 238bis is about sentences that have become res judicata; the art. 238 is similar, but allows the transportation from one trial to another also of other documentation.

An overview about interpretation of adversarial principles in art. 111 as explained by scholars (an article from the review Diritto Penale Contemporaneo):

http://http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/GALANTINI_GIUSTO%20PROCESSO%20E%20GARANZIA%20COSTITUZIONALE.pdf

Also: as for art. 238 (other documentation that is not just res judicata, such as withess statements),
the Constitutional Court, declared with Sentence 361 of October 26. - November 2. 1998 that some previous paragraphs were illegitimate under art. 111 of Constitution, namely paragraphs 4 of art. 238 but limited to the event in which the witness refusing to answer is being examined under art. 210 of the procedure code, and answering questions about the previous declarations that the witness had made as he/she was already witness before a judicial authority on a previous time. (it does not apply to extra-judicial declarations, that is declaration that were made by a person while the same person was not invested with the status of witness: such extra-judicial declarations can be transported as evidence into other trials)

The came Sentence 361 of October 26./November 2. - 1998 of the Constitutional Court stated that all other paragraphs of art. 238 (usability of documents and testimonies from a trial as evidence into a different trial) is compatible with art. 111 of the Constitution.

Art. 111 of the Italian Constitution has been among the objects of a conference meeting among three Constitutional Courts of Europe (of Italy, Spain and Portugal) about principles like the "adversarial principle" in forming the evidence and others:

http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/Diritto_processuale_penale.pdf

 

[Machiavelli]

-


Mach, when exactly did you decide Raffaele and Amanda were guilty?

I became 100% sure she was a murderer in summer 2009, after I listened to Knox's court testimony. At that point (after hearing her testimony) I looked back at other evidence, I read her hand written memory and I read her mop-shower story and reads parts of the papers of her Dec. 17. interrogation, and I started to look at the luminol footprints. Then I looked at the autopsy report findings and physical details of the scene.
I already believed there was very strong circumstantial evidence, but didn't know if she had a full role in the murder or maybe just a minor involvement of some kind.
But it was based on a) the autopsy, and on b) her testimony + her mop-shower story + Dec. 17. interrogation, and c) luminol prints, that I became 100% sure that she was fully involved in the murder. I have reached this complete certainty short after hearing court testimony.

 

[kwill]

Mach: luminol is far more sensitive and also more specific than TMB.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

Mach: Because the scientific literature . . . says so.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

 

[Wattson]

Because the scientific literature, that I had quoted already, more than once in the past, says so.

Then why on Earth would they bother to test with TMB if the results didn't matter? Why didn't they perform a confirmatory test on what they "perceived" to blood stains?

 

[Machiavelli]

Normal blood count is about 5 x 10 ¹² / litre. i.e. 5 x 10 ⁶ / microlitre. The sensitivity of TMB from "Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008;53 (3):687–689" is 1:5x10⁴ that is 1 x 10² / microlitre or 100 RBC / microlitre. A comparison of Luminol and other tests including TMB (haemastix) in J Forensic Sci 2007;52(1):102–109 report sensitivity for both as 1:10⁵. That is 50 RBC/microlitre. (...)

But in practical experiments, TMB proved to have a sensitivity 10 times lower under the best condition, limited to around 500 erytrocites/microliter. That is a blood dilution of 1:10⁴. Some experiments managed to obtain higher sensitivity, but even those in the best conditions found a sensitivity that was about 10 lower than luminol. This however, is the best result and the best figure obtained refers to the actual final dilution of the already collected sample. Which is, unfortunately, much more diluted than the actual stain. If a stain had originally a concentration of 500 erytrocites per microliter, the collected sample, being a diultion in aswab solution, may well have only 50 erytrocites per microliter. TMB is an indirect test, is done on the swab not on the stain. Therefore in practice its sensitivity (already of a magnitude lower compared to luminol) drops dramatically compared to a direct test like luminol.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach: luminol is far more sensitive and also more specific than TMB.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

Mach: Because the scientific literature . . . says so.

Me: This is untrue. False. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. Baloney. Nonsense. Please explain why you would say such a thing.

That I have already cited in the past.

 

[js202]

When you've finished your rethoric rant and taken a breath, call me. We will have a chance to get to back the topic.

Yet again, you do not get it. Over the course of thousands of posts here and elsewhere which resort to bafflingly nonsensical rhetoric - boasting internally contradictory logic, charges of racism, and insults to posters like Halkides whose knowledge and expertise exceeds your own in every respect but sophistry, & etc. - you have made your own absurd and obtuse approach to this case the topic of any attempted discussion with you. It is nothing more or less than a waste of brain cells to read what you write.