Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Well, Kaosium why don’t you explain to the noobs what the hitherto unknown Comodi was referring to.

I did: a false dichotomy by a corrupt prosecutor spinning her way out of a mess.

 

[platonov]

I did: a false dichotomy by a corrupt prosecutor spinning her way out of a mess.

Well as you cant or wont perhaps the snip is understandable - and to your credit

 

[Kaosium]

Well as you cant or wont perhaps the snip is understandable - and to your credit

Don't read anything into the snip outside I just wasn't in the mood to trade barbs of that nature with you today.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

John Thompson and exculpatory evidence

A fellow I know did this: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/arti...nicles_the_righting_of_a_wrongful_conviction/

This is a nice thought for all of you skeptics:

The Thompson case included suppression of evidence: "Events took a dramatic turn in April 1999. Thirty days before his scheduled execution, an investigator discovered that there was a blood stain from the robber on the clothing of one of the carjacking victims, and that this evidence had never been disclosed to the defense. The prosecutors had ordered testing to determine the blood type of the stain – in fact, they had rushed the test – but when the blood type was determined, and was different from Thompson’s, they concealed it."

 

[platonov]

Discretion and all that

Don't read anything into the snip outside I just wasn't in the mood to trade barbs of that nature with you today.

What - these kind of barbs ?

Manuela Comodi (which comes out as Manuela Comfortable with Google translate) was Mignini's partner in crime, another PM who handled most of the scientific work for the prosecution in court as Mignini admits he knows little of the intricacies of serology or DNA forensics.



Of course, but that false dichotomy worked with the high school drop-out level jurors ('lay judges') in the Massei Court and their online fan club with no better grasp of science or logic.

Wise move maybe

 

[Chris_Halkides]

artful nonsense from Comodi

During the trial, Comodi had this to say: "At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor," Comodi said. "and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide." link

It is up to the prosecution to show that a substance is blood, and they failed, miserably, to do so. Yet Ms. Comodi reversed the burden of proof, and the jury bought it.

 

[Desert Fox]

During the trial, Comodi had this to say: "At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor," Comodi said. "and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide." link

It is up to the prosecution to show that a substance is blood, and they failed, miserably, to do so. Yet Ms. Comodi reversed the burden of proof, and the jury bought it.

As well as a number of pro guilt posters in this thread

 

[Chris_Halkides]

indigent defendants and presumptive vs. confirmatory testing

A summary page on presumptive vs. confirmatory testing from a presentation by two people with experience with the defense of indigent people:

• Presumptive tests can only establish the possibility that a particular substance is present
• Confirmatory tests can identify a specific material
• A lab report or affidavit may not reveal what type of test was done
• Testimony at trial may be misleading, ie, “blood, blood, blood”
• Defenders must obtain the underlying notes and reports of the analyst
• Defenders should raise a challenge where:
• Only a presumptive test was done
• The mandated combination of tests was not done
• Testing protocol was not followed
• And seek to:
• Limit misleading testimony
• Instruct the jury, ie, on the limitations of a presumptive test in the absence of a confirmatory test.

 

[Kaosium]

What - these kind of barbs ?

Yes...

Wise move maybe

I like you Platonov, I don't like all the things you've posted especially regarding Chris Halkides, but I have enjoyed the games we've played. This was another 'game', follow the link and then review the post titles from today and the lyrics of the song....

 

[Kaosium]

During the trial, Comodi had this to say: "At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor," Comodi said. "and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide." link

It is up to the prosecution to show that a substance is blood, and they failed, miserably, to do so. Yet Ms. Comodi reversed the burden of proof, and the jury bought it.

It would have been nice had they actually shown those were Amanda and Raffaele's footprints as well!

 

[Bill Williams]

A summary page on presumptive vs. confirmatory testing from a presentation by two people with experience with the defense of indigent people:

• Presumptive tests can only establish the possibility that a particular substance is present • Confirmatory tests can identify a specific material• A lab report or affidavit may not reveal what type of test was done
• Testimony at trial may be misleading, ie, “blood, blood, blood”
• Defenders must obtain the underlying notes and reports of the analyst
• Defenders should raise a challenge where:
• Only a presumptive test was done
• The mandated combination of tests was not done
• Testing protocol was not followed
• And seek to:
• Limit misleading testimony
• Instruct the jury, ie, on the limitations of a presumptive test in the absence of a confirmatory test.

Chris - the way I heard it described was the difference between sensitivity and selectivity.

It's why the debate on which test is more sensitive is a bogus debate.

So correct me if I am wrong, but luminol is the test for presence of the large range of substances, only one of which is blood....

....and TMB is the one that I.D.'s whatever is found AS blood.

It then is irrelevant which one is more sensitive, because the TMB test is the one that "selects" for blood.

Correct?

 

[platonov]

It would have been nice had they actually shown those were Amanda and Raffaele's footprints as well!

Close enough for government work

ps Is it true that Britney had a piece in the op-ed pages of the NY Times on the falsely accused where she highlighted the PL case ??

 

[Kaosium]

Chris - the way I heard it described was the difference between sensitivity and selectivity.

It's why the debate on which test is more sensitive is a bogus debate.

So correct me if I am wrong, but luminol is the test for presence of the large range of substances, only one of which is blood....

....and TMB is the one that I.D.'s whatever is found AS blood.

It then is irrelevant which one is more sensitive, because the TMB test is the one that "selects" for blood.

Correct?

Not quite, both TMB and luminol are presumptive tests for blood, there supposedly weren't any confirmatory tests done. You're right the argument over sensitivity is essentially bogus though, the negative TMB tests show that either it wasn't blood or was blood in such low amounts it wasn't related to the murder which produced all sorts of fresh pure blood that TMB would have no problem picking up.

Luminol is notorious for its false positives so when it's sprayed the protocol is to check it with another presumptive test before taking a bunch of samples back to the lab for confirmatory blood testing and DNA analysis. Instead Stefanoni ignored the negative TMBs, hid them, and produced the luminol hits in court as blood and pretended it was 'too risky' to test further because of the 'risk' of a false negative. Note that this is a natural chemical reaction, if blood is present then TMB turns color, if it doesn't then it's not blood--or the blood is so old or in such scarce amounts it wouldn't even have been visible as such in the substance (like water) where it was found. So either it wasn't blood or it was water that got a drop of blood in it from menstruation, a cut or even from the murder that someone else tracked around.

 

[Kaosium]

Close enough for government work

ps Is it true that Britney had a piece in the op-ed pages of the NY Times on the falsely accused where she highlighted the PL case ??

I have no idea, I don't get ('take') the NYT. I don't recall hearing about it, but then again I don't follow her every move either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Presumptive versus Confirmatory blood tests

Chris - the way I heard it described was the difference between sensitivity and selectivity.

It's why the debate on which test is more sensitive is a bogus debate.

So correct me if I am wrong, but luminol is the test for presence of the large range of substances, only one of which is blood....

....and TMB is the one that I.D.'s whatever is found AS blood.

It then is irrelevant which one is more sensitive, because the TMB test is the one that "selects" for blood.

Correct?

Regrettably, it is not so simple. One problem is that when many chemists (myself sometimes included) mean to say "lower limit of detection," we say "sensitivity." The two are related, but they are not quite the same thing. I posted a discussion about this a year or so ago. Another problem is that sensitivity and selectivity are used somewhat differently in statistics from how they are used in chemistry (LondonJohn would be a better person than I am to discuss this).

I agree that luminol test has a range of substances which are false positives. With TMB, some of the same substances produce false positives, but not all do. Both tests will probably be positive for many transition metal ions (Fe, Cu, Co, Mn); both tests will be positive for animal blood. As several people have pointed out, a TMB test is a two-stage process, and this might be a factor in weeding out some false positives. In general I prefer the formulation that presumptive tests indicate the possibility that blood is present.

A true confirmatory test will only react with some substance human blood (or at least primate blood). HemaTrace and RSID are two such tests. There is another confirmatory test in the literature, one based on the presence of immunoglobulin G, an important protein in the immune response. However, I have not seen a commercial version of this particular test yet.

 

[acbytesla]

Close enough for government work

Close enough for government work? Very cheeky platonov. Is this what they say in the former Soviet Republics after they wrongly convict someone of a crime? "We may have gotten ir wrong, but at least we did something?"

 

[Desert Fox]

Close enough for government work? Very cheeky platonov. Is this what they say in the former Soviet Republics after they wrongly convict someone of a crime? "We may have gotten ir wrong, but at least we did something?"

The trouble is that I think that drives a lot of legal cases in the United States, Italy, and over developed nations. . . .you arrest and prosecute somebody to look like you are doing your job.

 

[platonov]

I have no idea, I don't get ('take') the NYT. I don't recall hearing about it, but then again I don't follow her every move either.

Oh well. Perhaps it never happened (like the 'no alibi' press conf.)

Now you will have to excuse me for a moment. halides1 and Bill are discussing sciency stuff & if I give it my full concentration I may learn something.
Hopefully they will discourse on the EDF’s and the Nencini 'Y- haplotype' thingy.

I’m here to learn !

 

[Bill Williams]

Regrettably, it is not so simple. One problem is that when many chemists (myself sometimes included) mean to say "lower limit of detection," we say "sensitivity." The two are related, but they are not quite the same thing. I posted a discussion about this a year or so ago. Another problem is that sensitivity and selectivity are used somewhat differently in statistics from how they are used in chemistry (LondonJohn would be a better person than I am to discuss this).

I agree that luminol test has a range of substances which are false positives. With TMB, some of the same substances produce false positives, but not all do. Both tests will probably be positive for many transition metal ions (Fe, Cu, Co, Mn); both tests will be positive for animal blood. As several people have pointed out, a TMB test is a two-stage process, and this might be a factor in weeding out some false positives. In general I prefer the formulation that presumptive tests indicate the possibility that blood is present.

A true confirmatory test will only react with some substance human blood (or at least primate blood). HemaTrace and RSID are two such tests. There is another confirmatory test in the literature, one based on the presence of immunoglobulin G, an important protein in the immune response. However, I have not seen a commercial version of this particular test yet.

I will then endeavour to keep my nose out of this. Once in a while I break that promise! My bad.

I have a background in radio reception, and selectivity and sensitivity are two of the basic parameters by which reception is measured. Sensitivity is how far into the noise floor one can go to get a reasonably meaningful modulated signal, selectivity refers to how well a receiver filters-out adjacent signals, particularly strong adjacent-signals which would otherwise mask the weaker one you're aiming for.

 

[platonov]

We never make mistakes - redux

Close enough for government work? Very cheeky platonov. Is this what they say in the former Soviet Republics after they wrongly convict someone of a crime? "We may have gotten ir wrong, but at least we did something?"

Nope.