Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

I don't think there is definitive proof that the luminol prints were cleaned up, but I believe they were. I don't believe they were so much diluted at the beginning. I think they were faint but maybe still visible, I think they looked about similar to the most diluted small footprint at the center of the bathmat. I think they were cleaned with water because there are marks of sweeping still visible in the luminol pictures.
But I think it was impossible to remove them completely, because blood substance can be dreadfully difficult to remove.
I believe there is evidence of a cleaning action in the small bathroom, cnsisting in the fact that the bathmat was completely soaked with water (they tried to wash it) and visible because of the inconsistence between the stain bathmat (it has stains all over half of it, and has at least two footprints) and the clean floor: I don't think it would be easy to get the bathmat splashed like that and get with soaked feet on it, while leaving the floor completely cleen. Moreover, there is a heel missing, and no trace of it.
There is also the further evidence of an attempt of cleanup: 1) three towels completely soaked with blood inside the murder room; I would call the use of a towel on a bloody crime scene a "cleanup", and 2) there are some semi-circular marks of sweeping the blood on the floor in Meredith's room; 3) there is one of the shoeprints, probably one of Rudy's trail, that was missing, not visible, that turned visible as latent print with luminol, and it yielded the mixed profile of Knox + Meredith.

There was blood on the bottom of the bathmat, that's probably what happened to the missing heel if it ever made a print, Rudy just used the bathmat to quickly wipe it up.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you're referring to what you just posted on the subject she doesn't say that at all. They're talking about the amorphous blob inside Filomena's room (not the corridor) and she never says anything was negative but that it was 'too risky' to do those tests because of the possibility of false negatives. If you think she's actually saying it always happens on luminol tests then you have either an outright lie or a breathtaking admission of incompetence. Here's the passage you posted:

It seems to me Stefanoni speaks in the plural about all luminol prints about which some DNA was found or searched. She puts in also findings 180 and 183.

You have no idea whether all the prints were of a diluted substance, you're assuming your conclusion in defiance of the evidence. The bright glowing pictures they made of the luminol hits strongly suggests whatever substance caused the reaction was not diluted, and 'isolated bare feet of (roughly) the same size' isn't much of an identifier when you're using something that can literally get reactions from substances that are years old (and have even been painted over!) like luminol can.

I disagree. It may suggest this to you, but to me luminol only indicates a latent trace, and a latent trace is almost by definition diluted. First, a strong reaction of luminol does not require at all a non-diluted substance; blood and positive substances are only a catalyst in luminol reaction, not reagents, a modicum amount can be enough to trigger an extremely strong reaction. Second, you need to conclude by inference that the substance is diluted, because a non-diluted substance that reacts to luminol but not with TMB was not found on the scene, and doesn't exist in nature (or is not known by science).

Assuming that such bare footprint stains are years old is clearly not reasonable, given the circumstantial picture, and given that there are no other luminol instances in the corridoor (if they are so common, why after many years you find only those isolated prints?). Moreover it doesn't explain why they are isolated, why they belong to two individuals, and why the coincidence of the prints with identical features in diluted blood, and why the coincidence that they fit the prints of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[christianahannah]

Why do you think I called it the 'Groundhogs Day Massacre?'

I love entendres.

It was you who gave the title? I thought it was Rose.

It's always good to love something.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't think there is definitive proof that the luminol prints were cleaned up, but I believe they were. I don't believe they were so much diluted at the beginning. I think they were faint but maybe still visible, I think they looked about similar to the most diluted small footprint at the center of the bathmat. I think they were cleaned with water because there are marks of sweeping still visible in the luminol pictures.
But I think it was impossible to remove them completely, because blood substance can be dreadfully difficult to remove.
I believe there is evidence of a cleaning action in the small bathroom, cnsisting in the fact that the bathmat was completely soaked with water (they tried to wash it) and visible because of the inconsistence between the stain bathmat (it has stains all over half of it, and has at least two footprints) and the clean floor: I don't think it would be easy to get the bathmat splashed like that and get with soaked feet on it, while leaving the floor completely cleen. Moreover, there is a heel missing, and no trace of it.
There is also the further evidence of an attempt of cleanup: 1) three towels completely soaked with blood inside the murder room; I would call the use of a towel on a bloody crime scene a "cleanup", and 2) there are some semi-circular marks of sweeping the blood on the floor in Meredith's room; 3) there is one of the shoeprints, probably one of Rudy's trail, that was missing, not visible, that turned visible as latent print with luminol, and it yielded the mixed profile of Knox + Meredith.

Thank you for answering. Interesting. Do you know if it was testified to that the bathmat was soaked/wet/damp upon the arrival of the police? And this shoeprint (that was not visible until luminol was applied) were there other shoeprints before and after it that were visible?

I have seen the swirl marks on the floor in Meredith's bedroom and agree it appears to look like an attempt at a possible cleaning.

 

[griffinmill]

His brevity on the subject may have been due to previous experiences with the interlocutor.



That's just all kinds of stupid and defies even what Stefanoni testified on the subject. Luminol gets all sorts of false positives, she noted detergents in what Machiavelli posted yesterday that I just reposted.



I no longer have free access to archives like that, cough up the cash if you want to read it.

Your original comment was on reducing agents, right? And Halkides didn't mention that as being a significant part of the article? Not surprising you changed the conversation to what you would rather talk about.

My original comment was on an article, the same article you commented on, and until we have the article, I don't think there is much more to say.

 

[acbytesla]

Thank you for answering. Interesting. Do you know if it was testified to that the bathmat was soaked/wet/damp upon the arrival of the police? And this shoeprint (that was not visible until luminol was applied) were there other shoeprints before and after it that were visible?

I have seen the swirl marks on the floor in Meredith's bedroom and agree it appears to look like an attempt at a possible cleaning.

But of what? bleach, detergent,soil with iron or manganese?

I find it crazy that when one is confronted with evidence that is not only not confirmed but contradicted by the available tests that a guilty lens is applied.

Is it reasonable to dismiss the Luminol stains as meaningless when the positive blood result is contradicted by negative TMB tests and no confirmatory test? I'd say ...damn right it is. That is a clear definition of "reasonable doubt" if I have ever heard one.

 

[griffinmill]

How much more or less sensitive are confirmatory tests than luminol? Are there any confirmatory tests that are more sensitive than luminol?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I don't think there is definitive proof that the luminol prints were cleaned up, but I believe they were. I don't believe they were so much diluted at the beginning. I think they were faint but maybe still visible, I think they looked about similar to the most diluted small footprint at the center of the bathmat. I think they were cleaned with water because there are marks of sweeping still visible in the luminol pictures.
But I think it was impossible to remove them completely, because blood substance can be dreadfully difficult to remove.
I believe there is evidence of a cleaning action in the small bathroom, cnsisting in the fact that the bathmat was completely soaked with water (they tried to wash it) and visible because of the inconsistence between the stain bathmat (it has stains all over half of it, and has at least two footprints) and the clean floor: I don't think it would be easy to get the bathmat splashed like that and get with soaked feet on it, while leaving the floor completely cleen. Moreover, there is a heel missing, and no trace of it.
There is also the further evidence of an attempt of cleanup: 1) three towels completely soaked with blood inside the murder room; I would call the use of a towel on a bloody crime scene a "cleanup", and 2) there are some semi-circular marks of sweeping the blood on the floor in Meredith's room; 3) there is one of the shoeprints, probably one of Rudy's trail, that was missing, not visible, that turned visible as latent print with luminol, and it yielded the mixed profile of Knox + Meredith.

1. What small footprint in the center of the bath mat?
2. Blood substance is dreadfully difficult to remove but then what happened to the rest of the "trail?" if it is so dreadfully difficult to remove, why are they able to remove it to fit your narrative, but not when you need it to be a stubborn stain? this is the logic you accuse some here of using.
3. Where are you ascertaining the bath mat was soaking wet? I've not heard of this before.
4. There was no missing Rudy print in Meredith's room which showed up with Luminol and tested positive for Knox and Kercher profiles.

 

[Kaosium]

It seems to me Stefanoni speaks in the plural about all luminol prints about which some DNA was found or searched. She puts in also findings 180 and 183.

Maybe so, but there's no mention of what kind of tests she was referring to, a 'series of tests' could be the entirety of the luminol testing, including the DNA tests (if they were blood they ought to have DNA!) and she never says anything was negative, but there was too much 'risk' of a false negative which kind of implies she didn't do them...

I disagree. It may suggest this to you, but to me luminol only indicates a latent trace, and a latent trace is almost by definition diluted. First, a strong reaction of luminol does not require at all a non-diluted substance; blood and positive substances are only a catalyst in luminol reaction, not reagents, a modicum amount can be enough to trigger an extremely strong reaction.

However for them to be below the detection threshold of TMB they have to be massively diluted, at least on the order of 10k:1 if not significantly moreso.

There's been papers (with pictures!) posted that show what happens to blood stains diluted to that extent, they fade alarmingly. This ought to figure being as there's much less of the material which reacts to 'light up' the luminol.

Second, you need to conclude by inference that the substance is diluted, because a non-diluted substance that reacts to luminol but not with TMB was not found on the scene, and doesn't exist in nature (or is not known by science).

Why do you keep saying this when it's not true? Read the following from this paper, starting on page 24:

"2.6.1 Presumptive Testing for Blood
The presumptive identification of blood relies on the peroxidase activity of the heme group in hemoglobin. Phenolphthalein (PH), tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), leucomalachite green (LMG), and other indicators work by oxidation of the test sample in the presence of hemoglobin to produce a color change reaction. Phenolphthalein is the most commonly used presumptive test for blood and may be used by itself or in concert with other presumptive tests.

A positive phenolphthalein result is indicated by a bright pink color that appears typically within ten to fifteen seconds after the test chemicals are added. This test is very sensitive and positive results can be obtained from stains that are barely visible or invisible to the naked eye. One drawback to this presumptive test is the number of substances that can produce false-positive results. Rust, copper and metal salts, salt-treated lumber, potatoes, and horseradish may all cause a positive result with PH. Usually, if one of these substances is present, the reaction time is slower and the color change takes longer to appear. Some laboratories use PH together with TMB in a double pre- sumptive test. TMB, which works in the same manner as PH, turns a blue-green color in the presence of blood. Although TMB is more specific than PH, meaning fewer false-positive results are indicated, it is less sensitive than PH and does not work as well on highly diluted blood stains. In any case where blood is suspected, the analyst must first determine what areas of an item of evidence may possibly contain blood.

While the color change pre- sumptive tests are good indicators for the presence of blood, they are not practical for testing whole items on which no stains are visible. Porous materials that have been stained with blood may absorb some of the blood even if the object has been washed and appears clean. For this reason, the luminol and fluorescein tests are used to indicate nonvisible blood stains. Luminol is a chemical presumptive test that, instead of producing a color change reaction, causes stained areas to emit light which must be observed under ‘black’ light. Fluorescein also causes a light reaction but the fluorescence must be observed using an alternate light source. Either luminol or fluorescein can be sprayed onto large surfaces such as walls or floors and the positive areas marked for further testing.

Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible. Positive areas should be marked and photographed immediately because the light reaction is not permanent and will fade. One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false-positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason, fluorescein- or luminol-positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests. Another problem with the light-based tests is that they are typically used on very faint stains. Spraying a chemical onto an already weak stain may dilute the stain even further, which could then lessen the chances of obtaining DNA from the sample."

(formatting mine)

​

Read it carefully, luminol is less specific (meaning more substances react) than phenolphthalein (PH) which in turn is less specific than TMB. PH and TMB are similar in that they are both color change tests, (as opposed to luminol which is chemiluminescence based) but do not react to exactly the same materials and neither does luminol react to the exact same materials. They'll all detect blood, but the other things that also cause a reaction differ between them and of them luminol is the least selective.

Assuming that such bare footprint stains are years old is clearly not reasonable, given the circumstantial picture, and given that there are no other luminol instances in the corridoor (if they are so common, why after many years you find only those isolated prints?). Moreover it doesn't explain why they are isolated, why they belong to two individuals, and why the coincidence of the prints with identical features in diluted blood, and why the coincidence that they fit the prints of Knox and Sollecito.

There's no reason to think it's diluted blood. Every floor is going to have stains whether a murder was committed there or not, some of them will cause luminol to light up. The isolation of the prints that are found and that most resemble human feet is hardly good evidence they're related to the murder, the latter (looking like feet) is irrelevant because amongst the most likely objects which could track anything on a floor is a human foot!

Every carpet has stains, they're commonplace, but that doesn't mean the entire carpet will be stained or that the stains are related to the same event. Considering the difference in the locations of these stains (in a general sense meaning hallway/Filomena's/Amanda's) there's no reason to think they're related to each other or to the murder, especially with the lack of Meredith's DNA in most all of them and the negative TMB tests on all but one--which overlapped where there definitely was a blood stain from Rudy's shoeprint.

 

[Kaosium]

It was you who gave the title? I thought it was Rose.

No, that was me who coined the phrase when it happened but it was Rose who used the term in her hilarious 'History of the Groundhogs Day Massacre' series later.

It's always good to love something.

No, it's not. Not always.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vitamin C and lemon juice

Maybe you should think about the fact that Halkides has already responded to my original post, clamied to have read the article, and didn't mention anything about "reducing agents."

My guess is it's not about what you're reacting to, and is actually about something else. Like whether the reactivity of luminol calls into question the necessity of further tests.

I would love to read the article, so if you have it, pass it along. Maybe Halkides will share it in its entirety.

Your arguments show your complete ignorance of the paper (which you have acknowledged not bothering to read) and of chemistry. The reducing agent in lemon juice which interferes with TMB is ascorbic acid (a.k.a. Vitamin C). Therefore, unless you can demonstrate the presence of a reducing agent at all of the luminol-positive locations, your argument is bogus. I cannot post the entire article without skating on thin ice with respect to copyrights. I still suggest reading it, however, on general principles. Your library may be able to obtain a copy for you.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Second, you need to conclude by inference that the substance is diluted, because a non-diluted substance that reacts to luminol but not with TMB was not found on the scene...

Is it reasonable to dismiss the Luminol stains as meaningless when the positive blood result is contradicted by negative TMB tests and no confirmatory test? I'd say ...damn right it is. That is a clear definition of "reasonable doubt" if I have ever heard one.

I must have misunderstood this TMB discussion. I thought no TMB tests were performed, or at least none were revealed to have been performed. If so, then why is Mach stating there were Luminol spots which did not react with TMB? likewise, acbytesla is stating the Luminol stains were contradicted by negative TMB testing.

Did they do TMB testing and it came up negative?

 

[Kaosium]

Your original comment was on reducing agents, right? And Halkides didn't mention that as being a significant part of the article? Not surprising you changed the conversation to what you would rather talk about.

Heh. Heh. Heh. You didn't draw the correct inference from that, but nevermind now.

My original comment was on an article, the same article you commented on, and until we have the article, I don't think there is much more to say.

Then post it or withdraw your contention.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hematrace

How much more or less sensitive are confirmatory tests than luminol? Are there any confirmatory tests that are more sensitive than luminol?

Confirmatory tests now have limits of detection that allow blood to be detected even when the dilution factor is one millionfold or greater.

 

[RWVBWL]

Two items which should also be noted.
1. If somebody else attacked Meredeth, I would expect physical evidence of them for the attack.
2. If he was a witness, he would have kept his story and not blamed Amanda and Raff.

Hi Desert Fox,
If those are indeed blonde hairs, 1 in Meredith's grasp, and 1 found upon examination of her vagina, it might be that the presumed semen stain is not Rudy Guede's. And that there was another attacker in Meredith's bedroom.

That hair strand still bothers me.
I've not cut my hair since January, it's the longest it's been since 1999,
and when I see some of the beach blonde wavy hair strands that fall out, I wonder about that pic of what looks like a blonde hair to me, that ain't no fiber from a duvet or a hair from "Poor Rudy". It does not look like black or dark brown hair to me. Too bad that the cops lost them both, it appears...

By the way,
keep those hairs in mind if you do think of the downstairs,
for right near the kitchen door, is that a shower curtain laying there,
as CodyJuneau mentioned he 1st thought it was? What do you folks think?

I think that it is, it seems much too large for a small kitchen window curtain.

If that is a shower curtain, and it was there when the cops broke into the downstairs, and the boys downstairs did not remove it right before they went on holiday, well it makes a person wonder, what was Rudy gonna do with it?
Wrap up Meredith in plastic and carry her thru town?
Wrap her and carry her body down the ravine and bury her?
Wrap her to hide as he put her body in the trunk of car to dispose of it elsewhere?

He didn't have a car.
If he had use of a car,
it's possible someone else knows some things + is keeping quiet.


Do you folks ever wonder how the heck PM Mignini and PM Comodi interviewed Hekuran Kokomani
and found any part of his ridiculous story to be true?
And then he was brought to Court to testify?

I mean, come on, he told PM Mignini that he threw some olives at Amanda when she brandished a knife as he sat in his car in the middle of the street when he almost ran her over?? And PM Mignini believed him? Hahaha.

I think that Koko's story was brought into Court to discredit him,
and so no one would dig deeper and see nor find any Rudy Guede connection.

Weird how Barbie Nadeu writes a coupla times in Angele Face that Kokomani was an informant. Koko's a part of the missing RG story, in my opinion. Frank Sfarzo wrote before that Koko knew RG from working together in a restaurant. Koko was about 10 years older than RG, more experienced in life and what else I wonder? Disconnecting burglar alarms systems, even 1's that were not on? I wonder if he was ever in the military, because LMT's old blog seemed to suggest that the murderer was left handed, and a former serviceman.

I too am wondering if the initial assault happened downstairs.
RG is upstairs, he broke the window, climbed up+in. MK came home. She grabbed the keys and went downstairs to check on the cat before studying. Koko mighta been outside, a look out. Followed her, attacked her, brought her back upstairs, then it went outta control soon afterwards. Explains the knowledge of the boys keys from downstairs.

Where were Meredith blood drops found at downstairs?
Are they watered down or deep red drops?

Afterwards,
it's trying to figure out what to do,
frame someone who lives there, or remove the body.
By ones self or with use of a car.

Man,
if those plastic bags on the kitchen stove were left there by an assailant,
it's lucky the place did not catch fire, for no one would have ever figured out the details of this horrible case we discuss. Oh wait, it's 7 years later now, and we still don't know what really happened.

Gosh,
a long post again, just more random thoughts...
RW

 

[Kaosium]

I must have misunderstood this TMB discussion. I thought no TMB tests were performed, or at least none were revealed to have been performed. If so, then why is Mach stating there were Luminol spots which did not react with TMB? likewise, acbytesla is stating the Luminol stains were contradicted by negative TMB testing.

Did they do TMB testing and it came up negative?

Yes, but she omitted that from her comprehensive forensic report (the RTIGF) and those records weren't discovered until late in the initial trial when Massei ordered the release of the records on or about July 30, 2009.

 

[RWVBWL]

If you're wearing gloves, you don't leave fingerprints to begin with, and as far as footprints are concerned, it's quite easy to obliterate the first set of ketchup footprints with a second set of ketchup footprints, if done soon after the first set are laid down. Go ahead and try it for yourself,

d

-
ETA: I did the experiment and posted a photo on my website HERE. I couldn't find the darn ketchup, so I used hot sauce instead. I laid two set of tracks with my fingers, and then a fourth set over a third set. Which one is the set of finger tracks and which ones were the shoe (which is shown in the picture along with the glove) prints and which is the glove prints and which was laid first, second, third, and last?

-

Nice test, Dave,
worth keeping in mind...
RW

 

[acbytesla]

I must have misunderstood this TMB discussion. I thought no TMB tests were performed, or at least none were revealed to have been performed. If so, then why is Mach stating there were Luminol spots which did not react with TMB? likewise, acbytesla is stating the Luminol stains were contradicted by negative TMB testing.

Did they do TMB testing and it came up negative?

YES, they did TMB tests and they came up negative.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hey Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher,
You 2 are both close to this case we discuss.

Do you have Crime Scene video from when the downstairs was 1st broken into, along with footage of ALL the rooms, such as the living room, bathrooms and bedrooms that are strangely missing from the publicly available video we do have that was filmed on Nov. 2, 2007?

It's perplexing that none of these rooms are shown,
for there wasn't any bodies lying in downstairs, right?

So why hide the viewing of the rooms that 2nd day of Nov.
and why are we only allowed to see them the next day???

Is there something downstairs that we are not supposed to see,
or is there a simple explanation, like the camera guy kooked it and forgot to bring an extra camcorder battery or video tape or SDHC or CF memory card?

Thanks for a reply,
RW

 

[RWVBWL]

I'm at the beach all the time, and sometimes after I get outta the water and am gonna split back to town, I'll throw my wet surf shorts in a single use, -(as they call 'em here in Southern Calif.) plastic bag to try and keep my truck a little dry.

A lotta times those shopping bags have small little holes in them, so water gets out.
Like the type seen on the downstairs stove,

or seen in the downstairs bathroom sink,

and seen on Giacomo's bed,

Makes me wanna ponder Diocletus's scenario.

RG
-(I'm always gonna keep an open mind: or someone else)
went downstairs after the murder and rinsed off or even showered, changed into some clothes that he found when rummaging around from the guys who lived down there and dripped dilluted bloody water from the crime scene above onto the stairway as he headed back upwards that night when he took away his bloody, wet clothing, carrying it in a thin shopping bag.

Watch the CS video, the watered down(?) blood is not on every step,
sometimes its skips more than a few. Those drops came from a cat?

Another random thought,
RW