Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Indeed. There's actually a double whammy going on with those Luminol photos: they were significantly overexposed on the camera to start with, then they were further digitally altered to increase contrast and brightness.

The photos fail in so many respects it would be laughable if it weren't so very serious. The luminescence shown in those photos is so radically different from what a proper crime scene investigator would expect to see from a genuine post-crime clean up: there's simply no way that any "clean up" would leave the sort of amorphous blobs seen in the photos - let alone any recognisable footprints; there was zero evidence of smearing or wiping in the hallway; the dramatically contaminated crime scene (the forensics goons and Mignini et al had been trampling right through the whole scene - including in and out of Kercher's room without changing footwear - for several days long in advance of the Luminol being applied); the clear evidence of photographic manipulation (including the rather inconvenient levels of luminescence seen on the police rulers and booties - I guess even they thought it would be a step too far to photoshop out that luminescence!).

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Luminol photos is that they are in no way evidence of a clean-up and that they in no way implicate Knox or Sollecito. In addition, it's reasonable to suggest that most of the apparent luminescence is a combination of contamination from the forensics goons and/or over-amplication of artifacts. It's hard (impossible really) to excuse the incompetence/mendacity of the police and prosecutors who presented those photos to the courts. I'm afraid it's also another indictment of the defence teams that they were not able to show the courts beyond doubt that those photos in no way constituted credible evidence against Knox or Sollecito.

But perhaps the courts (1st level and 2nd level Nencini) were not interested in listening to the defense.

I still have a question about the blood footprints attributed to Rudy Guede. Were they also photoshopped to exaggerate CL? My impression was that they faded out in a sequence, being most pronounced around Meredith's room and diminishing in the kitchen/dining area. Perhaps though I am refering to the blood trace visible in ambient or intense visual light and not luminol CL?

 

[anglolawyer]

Exactly. And he (and possibly Nencini too) is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept at play here.

The point about "osmosis" etc is that various pieces of evidence that point weakly towards guilt may, taken together, form strong evidence of guilt. But here's the critical thing: each of these pieces of evidence must be shown to be accurate and reliable in and of themselves.

The "osmosis" rule absolutely does NOT imply that one can take several pieces of evidence that are each unreliable, then line them up alongside each other and state that the combined presence of all of them makes each of them magically more reliable.

Instead, each separate piece of evidence is required to pass a threshold of reliability/accuracy/credibility before it can even be put into the mix. Only then can it be considered alongside all the other equally reliable pieces of evidence.

In this specific case, it's utterly specious for Machiavelli (or anyone else) to try to claim that it somehow doesn't really matter that the substance on the floor wasn't proven by the police to be blood, since when it's considered alongside other evidence, this makes it "more likely" to be blood. That sort of approach is not only anti-judicial, it's also fundamentally illogical. (See also the nonsense "argument" that it's "reasonable" to assume this is blood since there was "copious blood" in Kercher's room nearby - it doesn't take a Socratic genius to see just how massive a logic failure this is....)

If Stef had applied the luminol, noted the glow and then a hurricane had blown the house away, preventing further testing, I don't think the resulting evidence would be of zero value. It would be of limited value. I don't believe in the validity of the Italian statutory test for the prior assessment of individual scraps of evidence for their seriousness, gravity or whatever, because weak CE can be shored up by other CE.

Mach is simply being irrationally selective when he gets to the combining part. He leaves out of account the negative TMB, unexplained absence of confirmatory testing, lies about TMB, body of scientific study and opinion suggesting lack of specificity of luminol, general unreliability of the scientist involved, absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs, lack of substrate controls and the fact that Knox lived there. Apart from all that, his analysis is fine

A body of CE should point to one thing. Our CE points to a bunch of different and mutually inconsistent things. Therefore, there is something wrong with it. That's why Mach prefers to say it's 'too soon' to stick it all together, leaving us to read Nencini's jaw-dropping effort.

 

[Dan O.]

My interpretation of your information, including Loudon Wainwright's song, is that the image that shows a box of "Ace" (a brand of bleach?) should be taken to mean only that there was such a box in the apartment, and not necessarily any bleach. That seems reasonable to me. And if there were bleach in the apartment - and I am not one claiming there was - that would not be unreasonable, since the residents might employ bleach routinely to do certain laundry, or to clear away mold (if there had been any).

But you do continue to state that there is no sign of any crime scene clean-up as with bleach, to your knowledge.

All I said was that there was a "case for bleach". Case is the term that wholesalers use for a box containing multiple retail packages. And that case was clearly "being used" to store miscellaneous papers and things.

But what is really interesting about this particular case is that the investigators actually did collect it as evidence. It there on the shelf November 2/3 but missing on the return visit in December. Did they really think that somebody used up 6 bottles of bleach, disposed of the empty bottles, but just put the empty box on the shelf in plane sight?! They keep harping about a cleanup. Is this actually the evidence that they are basing that conclusion on?

 

[Dan O.]

But perhaps the courts (1st level and 2nd level Nencini) were not interested in listening to the defense.

I still have a question about the blood footprints attributed to Rudy Guede. Were they also photoshopped to exaggerate CL? My impression was that they faded out in a sequence, being most pronounced around Meredith's room and diminishing in the kitchen/dining area. Perhaps though I am refering to the blood trace visible in ambient or intense visual light and not luminol CL?

The bloody shoeprint tracts were photographed with normal light using the camer flash. Only one was accidentally captured with luminol.

Here are the last 4 known shoeprint tracts showing the progressive fading

Only one of the shoeprints was imaged with luminol and that was accidental because it happened to overlap with a stain thought to be a bare footprint.

Side by side comparison of this print at the marker in the middle of the hall outside Amanda's room as seen in normal light on November 2/3 and imaged with luminol after the visible stain was wiped away by the forensic investigators. The shoeprint portion of this tract which clearly contained Meredith's blood had less luminance than the bare foot portion. Yet of all the luminol prints in the hall, this is the only one that yealded a positive TMB result.

My interpretation is that TMB is showing a valid reaction to the trace blood from the shoeprint and the lack of a positive TMB result from the remaining Luminol prints shows that they were not made recently with blood.

 

[Numbers]

How about some ambiguity of language?

You are new here so you probably are not aware of all the evidence that has been presented in these threads.

I have on prior occasions posted photographic evidence proving a case for bleach being used in the hallway outside the room where Meredith was murdered.

Dan O.,

I interpreted your comment this way:
"proving" : showing strong evidence for
"a case" : a set of conditions or an object of investigation
"being used in the hallway" : the bleach itself employed for a function.

I now interpret your statement as:
The photo shows a case marked as originally containing bleach (6 - 3L bottles) resting on the bottom shelf of a cabinet (?) in the hallway.

BTW, do you or anyone know whether the Forensic Police photoshopped the luminol CL prints to a uniform contrast/intensity? Did the cops admit to this data enhancement (or manipulation), or is it a conclusion based on the appearance of the images?

While I had read that the cops over-applied the luminol, I had thought that the high contrast indicated some high concentration of catalyst, such as umber, adherent to the floor material (tiles?) - maybe embedded in pores. Your comments and those of LondonJohn are dashing my hypotheses.

ETA: That is, whatever caused the luminol to light up may be present in low concentration. It may have varied in concentration among the prints. It was not blood since TMB was negative. If Lab Tech Stefanoni et al. had thought there was any possibility the prints were blood, they would have used confirmatory testing on them.

ETA2: I don't believe the picture of the case shows any papers etc. inside it; thus the "use" is an inference or comes from additional info not in the picture. The "use" from the picture could be simply the storage of a box until moving day.

 

[platonov]

Have they turned another one !!!!

In your opinion were the luminol reactions considered strong? I know they were not perfectly formed (as in perfect outlines of feet, etc.). Was there evidence of a cleaning action having been done?

And hello to all. It is funny how I come here and find the site has changed (I guess I missed all the excitement) but thankfully the discussion has remained the same.

Understatement doesn’t quite do this justice
(What did you make of the ‘alibi’ press conf. – has it shaken your faith ?)

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

Manganese schmanganese – the brains trust in the earlier cartwheel threads proved it was turnip juice.

Why muddy the waters.

 

[Desert Fox]

What are you talking about? . . . .We do not know what the substance was that triggered and will probably never know. We have some speculation based on the environment and other factors but we will never know.

However, that does not give anybody the ability to substitute whatever they want into an "I Don't Know." This is just the same as UFOs. You saw something in the sky and do not know what it was. You cannot therefore say it was aliens.

Edit: I should also add that you are creating a strawman. It is doubtful than anybody ever argued it was turnip juice. By using turnip juice, you make it sound ridiculous however and are creating a straman argument for you to argue against. Never forget that you are on a skeptics boards and some of us are skeptics first and supporters of Amanda and Raff second.

 

[Numbers]

If Stef had applied the luminol, noted the glow and then a hurricane had blown the house away, preventing further testing, I don't think the resulting evidence would be of zero value. It would be of limited value. I don't believe in the validity of the Italian statutory test for the prior assessment of individual scraps of evidence for their seriousness, gravity or whatever, because weak CE can be shored up by other CE.
Mach is simply being irrationally selective when he gets to the combining part. He leaves out of account the negative TMB, unexplained absence of confirmatory testing, lies about TMB, body of scientific study and opinion suggesting lack of specificity of luminol, general unreliability of the scientist involved, absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs, lack of substrate controls and the fact that Knox lived there. Apart from all that, his analysis is fine

A body of CE should point to one thing. Our CE points to a bunch of different and mutually inconsistent things. Therefore, there is something wrong with it. That's why Mach prefers to say it's 'too soon' to stick it all together, leaving us to read Nencini's jaw-dropping effort.

1st highlight:
How are the Italian courts interpreting their law or regulation for the evaluation of CE? Not consistently, I think, and not in accordance with a reasonable, objective understanding of the law. Nencini, for example, takes unreliable or false "evidence" - including "evidence" not presented that he has invented - and weaves it together (sort of) as instructed by the CSC.

2nd highlight:
Is there reliable CE in the case (=judicial investigation) that points to guilt? When the unreliable CE - which does not have value as evidence (that is, it is DNA contamination or lab misconduct, or false or non-credible testimony) - and the unreliable direct evidence - which consists of coerced statements and statements made without representation - are eliminated, there is no evidence of guilt remaining, IMO.

 

[Kauffer]

On the luminol reactions

I seem to recall a photograph showing the hall radiator attached to the outside of the bathroom wall with evidence of long standing leaking of rust coloured water. This would set off the luminol fluorescence would it not, unless I have mis-remembered the picture? Has this been discussed here before?

 

[Desert Fox]

I seem to recall a photograph showing the hall radiator attached to the outside of the bathroom wall with evidence of long standing leaking of rust coloured water. This would set off the luminol fluorescence would it not, unless I have mis-remembered the picture? Has this been discussed here before?

I actually pointed that out a while back
I believe this is the image
[Link]

 

[Dan O.]

BTW, do you or anyone know whether the Forensic Police photoshopped the luminol CL prints to a uniform contrast/intensity? Did the cops admit to this data enhancement (or manipulation), or is it a conclusion based on the appearance of the images?

The image itself tells me all I need to know:

Date and time of data generation|| 20:31, 18 December 2007
Lens focal length|| 38 mm
Software used||Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
File change date and time||15:32, 19 December 2007

While I had read that the cops over-applied the luminol, I had thought that the high contrast indicated some high concentration of catalyst, such as umber, adherent to the floor material (tiles?) - maybe embedded in pores. Your comments and those of LondonJohn are dashing my hypotheses.

TMB and Luminol react to the same substances at nearely the same concentration. The two step TMB process gives a different indications for oxidants and catalysts that preak down the peroxide. For TMB not to react where Luminol does indicates that the substance is attached to the substrate and cannot be picked up by the TMB swab.

Be it rust, iron, umbra or very old blood, these all break down to the same thing: iron ions which can bond to other materials and act as the catalyst that releases oxygen from the peroxide that then combines with the Luminol to make it glow.

ETA: That is, whatever caused the luminol to light up may be present in low concentration. It may have varied in concentration among the prints. It was not blood since TMB was negative. If Lab Tech Stefanoni et al. had thought there was any possibility the prints were blood, they would have used confirmatory testing on them.

It's clear they were told that the prints had to be blood. That's why they ignored the negative TMB result and went straight on to DNA testing. If there was other confirmatory testing done it has been properly concealed.

ETA2: I don't believe the picture of the case shows any papers etc. inside it; thus the "use" is an inference or comes from additional info not in the picture. The "use" from the picture could be simply the storage of a box until moving day.

Objects are visible inside that box resembling multiple colored pieces of paper. It may not be clear in that low resolution image but I have seen this in the originals or from other photos.

 

[Numbers]

The image itself tells me all I need to know:

Date and time of data generation|| 20:31, 18 December 2007
Lens focal length|| 38 mm
Software used||Adobe Photoshop CS Windows File change date and time||15:32, 19 December 2007

TMB and Luminol react to the same substances at nearely the same concentration. The two step TMB process gives a different indications for oxidants and catalysts that preak down the peroxide. For TMB not to react where Luminol does indicates that the substance is attached to the substrate and cannot be picked up by the TMB swab.

Be it rust, iron, umbra or very old blood, these all break down to the same thing: iron ions which can bond to other materials and act as the catalyst that releases oxygen from the peroxide that then combines with the Luminol to make it glow.





It's clear they were told that the prints had to be blood. That's why they ignored the negative TMB result and went straight on to DNA testing. If there was other confirmatory testing done it has been properly concealed.





Objects are visible inside that box resembling multiple colored pieces of paper. It may not be clear in that low resolution image but I have seen this in the originals or from other photos.

Thanks for explaining the evidence for the police manipulating the evidence in some unknown way (I am assuming they did not tell the defense what they had done to the images).

As an amateur and fully unlicensed lawyer of several days experience, I can see how this manipulation, if unacknowledged in detail to the defense, constitutes yet another bit of evidence for presentation to the ECHR that the trials have been unfair to a degree leading to a wrongful conviction.

 

[Machiavelli]

TMB and Luminol react to the same substances at nearely the same concentration. The two step TMB process gives a different indications for oxidants and catalysts that preak down the peroxide. For TMB not to react where Luminol does indicates that the substance is attached to the substrate and cannot be picked up by the TMB swab. (...)

Even the most stretched TMB version estimate places the performance of TMB sensitivity versus luminol at a maximum 1:5 ratio. The most sensitive TMB test is 5 times les sensitive than luminol (on the actual tested sample, not the stain).

In order to fix metal ions on ceramic you need a temperature above about 900 centigrades.

But I concede it would be rather difficult to take away much of old blood traces with just a swab, and I think that was the problem with TMB on several blood stains and on the luminol stains as well. Not enough absolute amount in the swab. Those luminol prints are certainly old stains, meaning 47 days old.

 

[Kauffer]

I actually pointed that out a while back
I believe this is the image


Yes that's it - or one of them. Well done. Interestingly, there is another from a slightly different angle a picture or two on from this one which also shows Ms Knox's lamp in another position with the flex extending out into the hall. I rather felt this might be evidence that the FP likely moved the lamp themselves from Ms Knox's room.

 

[Dan O.]

Even the most stretched TMB version estimate places the performance of TMB sensitivity versus luminol at a maximum 1:5 ratio. The most sensitive TMB test is 5 times les sensitive than luminol (on the actual tested sample, not the stain).

In order to fix metal ions on ceramic you need a temperature above about 900 centigrades.

But I concede it would be rather difficult to take away much of old blood traces with just a swab, and I think that was the problem with TMB on several blood stains and on the luminol stains as well. Not enough absolute amount in the swab. Those luminol prints are certainly old stains, meaning 47 days old.

The bloody shoe print in the hall was known to be 47 days old. As seen in the crime scene video, in the early hours of November 3 the forensics team used the little swab to remove every visible trace of blood. 47 days later this location lit up with luminol AND tested positive to TMB. Clearly, 47 days is insufficient time for a stain to age to the point where it is no longer detectable with TMB. The Luminol prints where TMB was negative cannot be the result of blood left in the last 47 days.

You are also claiming that the bare footprint was cleaned up to remove the visible trace prior to the arrival of the police and forensics team. How does this work? The bare print is intertwined with the shoe print. We know that the shoe print was left by Rudy who later went dancing. When are you, Mignini and the convicting judges proposing that the bare prints were cleaned up?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Mach is simply being irrationally selective when he gets to the combining part. He leaves out of account the negative TMB, unexplained absence of confirmatory testing, lies about TMB, body of scientific study and opinion suggesting lack of specificity of luminol, general unreliability of the scientist involved, absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs, lack of substrate controls and the fact that Knox lived there. Apart from all that, his analysis is fine

(...)

the fact that Knox lived there

This is equivalent to acknowleging that the whole innocentisti position rests on a set of assumptions from a conspiracy theory.

ps: "lack of specificity of luminol", is logically irrelevant to the building of a piece of circumstantial evidence (while objections become especially if there is a lack of a plausible alternative), as much as any complaint about some information being "incomplete" is pointless. Circumstantial evidence is by definition incomplete information.
"Negative TMB test" is irrelevant due to properties of TMB (which could only bring redundant information with a minor quality). It would be irrelevant even if positive (this won't be a sufficient reason for not performing the test).
The fact that Knox lived there is obviously pointless, since does not provide any innocent plausible explanation about the dynamic of how the footprints were made (isolated, not in trail), neither about the alternative substance, nor about their belonging to two different individuals, and even less would explain the rest of information (like being found together with prints in diluted blood with identical features on the same crime scene, mixed DNA, latent shoeprint, evidence of cleanup, the fact that they are explained by a murderers/stagers shuffle on the bathmat etc.)

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor.
"lack of substrate controls" is merely a complaint of incomplete information and also hardly well founded, since the substrate won't be just walking out from a bathroom, where btw there is no soil but rather bare footprint in diluted blood.

Calling "lies about TMB" or "unexplained", or claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture. It's pure conspiracy theory. Nothing of that kind exists within the actual context; there is no evidence of such claims in reality, these things exist in the innocentisti minds.

 

[Machiavelli]

The bloody shoe print in the hall was known to be 47 days old. As seen in the crime scene video, in the early hours of November 3 the forensics team used the little swab to remove every visible trace of blood. 47 days later this location lit up with luminol AND tested positive to TMB. Clearly, 47 days is insufficient time for a stain to age to the point where it is no longer detectable with TMB. The Luminol prints where TMB was negative cannot be the result of blood left in the last 47 days.

The forensics always remove entirely any trace of blood from a scene in the end, no matter how old it is. It may be years but they'll remove it.

But I think for the latent stains it works differently. They are invisible. What I had understood from Stefanoni's testimonies - but that may be just my own speculation, since it's what I interpreted - is that all the floor samples that were performed in the laboratory they were actually samples taken from the floor after placing a tag on the spot. What the swab actually collects from is unknown.

You are also claiming that the bare footprint was cleaned up to remove the visible trace prior to the arrival of the police and forensics team. How does this work? The bare print is intertwined with the shoe print. We know that the shoe print was left by Rudy who later went dancing. When are you, Mignini and the convicting judges proposing that the bare prints were cleaned up?

It isn't intertwined with the shoe print. Not all luminol stains were found to be bare foot prints. There are six bare foot prints and one partial shoe prints that glow in luminol on the apartment floor. That one you mean is not a bare foot.

 

[Machiavelli]

Indeed. There's actually a double whammy going on with those Luminol photos: they were significantly overexposed on the camera to start with, then they were further digitally altered to increase contrast and brightness.

The photos fail in so many respects it would be laughable if it weren't so very serious. The luminescence shown in those photos is so radically different from what a proper crime scene investigator would expect to see from a genuine post-crime clean up: there's simply no way that any "clean up" would leave the sort of amorphous blobs seen in the photos - let alone any recognisable footprints; there was zero evidence of smearing or wiping in the hallway; the dramatically contaminated crime scene (the forensics goons and Mignini et al had been trampling right through the whole scene - including in and out of Kercher's room without changing footwear - for several days long in advance of the Luminol being applied); the clear evidence of photographic manipulation (including the rather inconvenient levels of luminescence seen on the police rulers and booties - I guess even they thought it would be a step too far to photoshop out that luminescence!).

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Luminol photos is that they are in no way evidence of a clean-up and that they in no way implicate Knox or Sollecito. In addition, it's reasonable to suggest that most of the apparent luminescence is a combination of contamination from the forensics goons and/or over-amplication of artifacts. It's hard (impossible really) to excuse the incompetence/mendacity of the police and prosecutors who presented those photos to the courts. I'm afraid it's also another indictment of the defence teams that they were not able to show the courts beyond doubt that those photos in no way constituted credible evidence against Knox or Sollecito.

It's impossible to tell how the "real thing looked like" to the human eye, or to tell about the "real light conditions" on a scene, from a photo. Anyone ho ever made photos at some semi-professional level would know. It's simply impossible.
When it's about photos taken in extreme light conditions, such as those taken in the dark, it's just a joke. Contrast, colour, clarity, and gamm width above all. A photo may just have only a little resemblance with what your eyes can see.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

copper, cobalt, and manganese ions as false positives

In order to fix metal ions on ceramic you need a temperature above about 900 centigrades.

Machiavelli,

Have you ever seen rust stains on tile or concrete? I doubt that the temperature ever got to 900 °C when they were made. BTW your various claims about TMB and luminol run into conflict even with each other. If you wish to claim that luminol has a lower limit of detection (5,000,000 fold dilution versus 1,000,000 fold), well OK. Yet that means that substances such as animal blood might give a false positive with luminol but not with TMB.

Kauffer,

Copper ions, manganese ions, and cobalt ions (maybe nickel also) are all known to cause false positives in one or more presumptive tests. The Lindy Chamberlain and the Gregory Taylor cases are two instances where false positives were probably the result of transition metal ions of the first row.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no substrate controls and the lack of Ms. Kercher's DNA

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor...

I generally note that some luminol-positive stains do have Ms. Kercher's DNA. What is your explanation for the lack her DNA in the rest? Blood is known to be rich in DNA, so where is Ms. Kercher's DNA in the other seven. And why wouldn't a substrate control be helpful in situations such as this one?