Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

This post has info from Dan O. on the luminol footprint image treatment (Photoshopping, no details) [post 5011]:

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
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


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

 

[Bill Williams]

And on one or more of the photos, one can also see specks/misting on the upper surface of one of the forensics goon's white protective booties.

Could it be that one of the forensics morons was aspirating misted blood down onto the top of his booties and onto that ruler??

I couldn't readily find the pic.... so that the one of the Scientific Police stepping in dried blood with his/her protective bootie was enough. Remember, this photos were taken by the Scientific police themselves... and it never occurred to them that they were proving contamination of the crimescene with their own photos.

(BTW - is Machiavelli avoiding talk about De Nunzio? Is he not wanting to clarify his cryptic remarks about how Galati booted the case pre-Hellmann?)

 

[Numbers]

I couldn't readily find the pic.... so that the one of the Scientific Police stepping in dried blood with his/her protective bootie was enough. Remember, this photos were taken by the Scientific police themselves... and it never occurred to them that they were proving contamination of the crimescene with their own photos.

(BTW - is Machiavelli avoiding talk about De Nunzio? Is he not wanting to clarify his cryptic remarks about how Galati booted the case pre-Hellmann?)

The Forensic Keystone Police may have contaminated their booties and rulers etc. with bits of dried blood, based on this picture and others.

But they (1 or more) also went OUTSIDE the house still wearing the booties, I recall seeing in 1 or more pictures. And the soil of Umbria (Perugia) is full of umber. "Umber is a natural brown or reddish-brown earth pigment that contains iron oxide and manganese oxide" (Wikipedia)

 

[christianahannah]

Understatement doesn’t quite do this justice

You got it! (perhaps I was too subtle?)

(What did you make of the ‘alibi’ press conf. – has it shaken your faith ?)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean Raffaele's PC but how would that shake my faith?

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

Or horseradish.

Why muddy the waters.

I wonder this at times, too.

 

[Samson]

Here is a version I edited of a small part of the interview TJMK have posted of Mignini interviewing Amanda on 17th December 2007. I have removed the interpreter and her lawyer, but the substance remains, nothing added.


PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very she made these declarations. Well I also have to…
I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?
Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.
PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on
Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick… they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick…That was the worse experience of my life, I had never been more confused than then
PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way … still you didn’t … I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears… the scream… it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?
PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one…
Knox: Yes, I imagined these things, I was so scared and confused that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it…
PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel….forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously… in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd…. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize… excuse me, eh? … excuse me….
Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”
PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you… since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this… therefore it’s not something… why did you threw yourself in this kind of… ? While you had, you had the possibility to…?
Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true
PM Mignini: It could have been true?
Knox: When I was there, I was confused…
PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?
PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here…
Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true…
PM Mignini: Look, listen… listen, why did you imagine it?
Knox Why?... Because I was stressed
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine…
PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?
Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty
PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’….


It is extraordinary that at one point he would even suggest Lumumba was introduced as a subject spontaneously by Amanda, an obvious and very important lie.
Since this is straight from the court records, there seems material to substantiate her action at the ECHR, and that her account of a false accusation and how it came to pass is logically consistent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here is a version I edited of a small part of the interview TJMK have posted of Mignini interviewing Amanda on 17th December 2007. I have removed the interpreter and her lawyer, but the substance remains, nothing added.


PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very she made these declarations. Well I also have to…
I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?
Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.
PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on
Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick… they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick…That was the worse experience of my life, I had never been more confused than then
PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way … still you didn’t … I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears… the scream… it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?
PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one…
Knox: Yes, I imagined these things, I was so scared and confused that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it…
PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel….forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously… in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd…. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize… excuse me, eh? … excuse me….
Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”
PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you… since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this… therefore it’s not something… why did you threw yourself in this kind of… ? While you had, you had the possibility to…?
Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true
PM Mignini: It could have been true?
Knox: When I was there, I was confused…
PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?
PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here…
Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true…
PM Mignini: Look, listen… listen, why did you imagine it?
Knox Why?... Because I was stressed
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine…
PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?
Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty
PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’….


It is extraordinary that at one point he would even suggest Lumumba was introduced as a subject spontaneously by Amanda, an obvious and very important lie.
Since this is straight from the court records, there seems material to substantiate her action at the ECHR, and that her account of a false accusation and how it came to pass is logically consistent.

The highlighted part is the whole thing in a nutshell. Knox is telling Mignini, yet Mignini a few questions later hits the reset switch as if she had not told him how Lumumba "came into the room" as a subject of the interrogation.

Sheesh.

Here it is seven years later, and the Kerchers still do not have the justice they deserve. Because Mignini kept hitting the reset switch to try to fit two, not one but two innocent people into this murder investigation - when it is obvious they had nothing to do with it.

 

[Samson]

The highlighted part is the whole thing in a nutshell. Knox is telling Mignini, yet Mignini a few questions later hits the reset switch as if she had not told him how Lumumba "came into the room" as a subject of the interrogation.

Sheesh.

Here it is seven years later, and the Kerchers still do not have the justice they deserve. Because Mignini kept hitting the reset switch to try to fit two, not one but two innocent people into this murder investigation - when it is obvious they had nothing to do with it.

Mach helped with the translation, there are hours of it in four parts, and the bits I have read do nothing for the guilt case at all, so I have no idea why they bother, but it is undoubtedly useful for the defence generally, so keep at it I say.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach helped with the translation, there are hours of it in four parts, and the bits I have read do nothing for the guilt case at all, so I have no idea why they bother, but it is undoubtedly useful for the defence generally, so keep at it I say.

There's also nothing fundamentally different in the English translation of the Nencini motivations report (2014) than from what Luca Cheli reported.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

I don't know why they bother, but am grateful that they do.

 

[Samson]

There's also nothing fundamentally different in the English translation of the Nencini motivations report (2014) than from what Luca Cheli reported.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

I don't know why they bother, but am grateful that they do.

I am reflecting on what motivates human behaviour here now.
The guilt believers seem intent on persuading others they are right.
This is also true of people who know they are innocent.
As a hypothetical construct one might imagine that the latter would be intent on accurate translations of all deliberations and interviews, to discredit them, but it seems the opposite is the case, the guilt believers are taking this as their important task.
Why this is so I think I have a theory on, but it is not well formed yet.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am reflecting on what motivates human behaviour here now.The guilt believers seem intent on persuading others they are right.
This is also true of people who know they are innocent.
As a hypothetical construct one might imagine that the latter would be intent on accurate translations of all deliberations and interviews, to discredit them, but it seems the opposite is the case, the guilt believers are taking this as their important task.
Why this is so I think I have a theory on, but it is not well formed yet.

With all due...

This speculation highlighted is a blind alley. All that happens is that this leads to copious ad hominem-ing, if that is a word.

It is better to deal with evidence, and attempts to fit such into a logical timeline which is a best fit.

This is something guilters never do:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MoMK-Timeline-2007-11-01.jpg

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/timeline-november-1/

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, I apologize for that last post - it's hardly a level playing field.

It was beneath me.

Not at all - after all, Filomena didn't do you-know-what until at least the 15th. In my view, it's a mystery why Sollecito's sister's girlfriend didn't speak about the discombobulation issue in the infamous "never-to-be-forgotten" Inmarsat call - I'd call that suspicious, wouldn't you?!

 

[Samson]

With all due...

This speculation highlighted is a blind alley. All that happens is that this leads to copious ad hominem-ing, if that is a word.

It is better to deal with evidence, and attempts to fit such into a logical timeline which is a best fit.

This is something guilters never do:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MoMK-Timeline-2007-11-01.jpg

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/timeline-november-1/

Bill, blind alleys are everywhere, but definitely not here. It is pointless to discuss the case without bringing Massei and Nencini to the table for analysis.
While it is tempting to pretend these are two hiatuses in the long truth game, they are in total control of their disciples at this moment.

 

[js202]

Whereas Follain is an embarrassment, Gumbel and Hattenstone are good men and true. And you do have Nadeau. I suspect she has made more life changing money from this case than any other for the deliberate sacrifice of an innocent.

Are you saying you believe Ms. Nadeau knows AK and RS to be innocent and has been one of Mignini's water carriers solely for the money? My sense has always been that, like all but one or two guilt-believers (who are instead merely twisted sadists), she's not smart enough to ascertain the truth.

 

[Dan O.]

Are you saying you believe Ms. Nadeau knows AK and RS to be innocent and has been one of Mignini's water carriers solely for the money? My sense has always been that, like all but one or two guilt-believers (who are instead merely twisted sadists), she's not smart enough to ascertain the truth.

How can Ms. Barbie Nadeau hold one of the first outside photographs demonstrating police corruption in this case and never even mention it. It's like she only reports what the prosecution wants her to report.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mn in soil and plants; Palmer versus Arkansas on luminol admissibility

Or horseradish.

Here is a link on manganese in soils. "Manganese (Mn) deficiency and toxicity have been noted in Wisconsin on various soils. The amount of manganese in rocks and soils varies greatly. Some soils may have as much as 3,000 parts per million (ppm) manganese, yet most of this is unavailable for plant use." Manganese is part of the oxygen-forming apparatus of Photosystem II a key protein complex in chloroplasts (PSII is necessary for photosynthesis). Perhaps we are in a better position to understand what Dr. Virkler and Professor Lednev (coauthors of a review article on presumptive and confirmatory tests on body fluids) wrote, " “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.” (highlighting mine).

It never ceases to bewilder me why pro-guilt commenters want to elevate luminol to the status of a confirmatory test, in effect saying that they know more about forensic chemistry than forensic chemists do. Here is something from a case from 1994, Palmer v. Arkansas:

"1. CRIMINAL LAW - LUMINOL TESTS POSITIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD - TEST WITHOUT FACTORS WHICH RELATE THAT EVIDENCE TO THE CRIME NOT ADMISSIBLE. - The mere presence of human blood by luminol testing without factors which relate that evidence to the crime is not admissible; luminol tests done without follow-up procedures are unreliable to prove the presence of human blood or that the substance causing the reaction was related to the alleged crime.
2. APPEAL & ERROR - PROOF PREJUDICIAL - ERROR FOUND. - Where the state's proof concerning luminol, including photographs of the bedroom, was weighed against the evidence generally, which evidence failed to show that the test results were related to human blood related to the crime, the supreme court found prejudice in the admission of the luminol results."

I agree that not every jurisdiction behaves the same way with respect to unsupported luminol evidence. However, the negative TMB test and the lack of Meredith's DNA in the majority of the stains are additional evidence against the hypothesis that the stains were made in blood In addition, the presence of Meredith's DNA in a few samples does not constitute a confirmatory test for blood. I am still waiting for the pro-guilt explanation for Rep. 180 a foot track in Amanda's room. It does not look like Amanda's reference print with respect to the second toe. If it is not Amanda's track, then it must have been made at some other time and with some other substance than blood.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Inquiry into Innocence

Sorry, but I find this concept of a group of Brits standing around in a church in London, sipping scotch and soda, and discussing injustice in the American south, to be very peculiar.

It is even more incongruous when one recalls that the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission was the first of its kind in the US. Supercal, a word to the wise: Don't be dismissive of UNC-Chapel Hill while chatting with Mr. Stafford-Smith.

 

[lonepinealex]

What does the US justice system have to do with the price of fish anyway? A judicial injustice is a judicial injustice, in whatever country.

 

[anglolawyer]

The first is definitely correct, and the second is highly likely.

With regard to potential inferences, one only has to look at the photos to see that there's something very wrong about them. The sheer presence of luminescent "misting" effects all over the frame is very troubling, and points strongly towards accidental or deliberate mishandling/misinterpretation (I lean towards "deliberate").

This is what properly-exposed photos of properly-applied on hard flooring look like:

Here's the "before" - note that zero visible blood is present:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_40237545040082cb69.jpg[/qimg]


And here's the "after" - note the clear and strong luminescence with minimal artifacts, showing clear presence of blood or another oxidising agent on the floor that has been cleaned up:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402375450405210fb5.jpg[/qimg]


ETA Link to case in question: http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/twitchell-mark-photos-2.htm

I have to laugh at the idea that this is a crime scene. Have you ever seen one, LJ? A real crime scene is distinguished by having everything tossed around randomly in complete disorder without discriminating between things that are evidence of what happened and things that aren't. Stefanoni has demonstrated how it's done. If MichaelB is reading, we could really use that list of 54 howlers that had the Hellman court, well, howling, as a useful aide memoire.

I have a theory, a real one. My theory is that you can't investigate a complicated crime scene like this one unless you have a theory. A theory that guides what you take an interest in and what not. It might be provisional. In fact, it should be provisional. You might, for instance, have a tip off that a secret sect is carrying out murders like this throughout Umbria and always leaving its calling card in the leaf of one of the books in the house. In that case, your theory will direct that you carefully search through all the books to find it. If you don't have such a theory, you might (although I can't think why) toss all the books, and everything else, all over the place and make a random jumble out of everything.

Whoever emptied the wardrobe and tossed everything on the bed in a great mass (after taking the mattress to the kitchen) and removed the doors and propped them against the wall - had a theory. What the heck was it? What was the theory that relegated the clothes she was wearing to the laundry basket and the handbag from which things were stolen to the jumbled pile of stuff on the bed?

Whoever ignored the lamp, not giving it an identifying marker or photographing it properly or fingerprinting or otherwise testing it likewise had a theory. Whoever (OK, we know who) applied luminol to the hallway but not in the victim's room had a theory too. Shouldn't there have been traces in the room leading to the door?

Maybe her theory was: any old random crap will do as I am told they know who did it and am being leaned on to come up with something, just like before when my theory led me to test just two knives but not bother with any of those in the flat itself or at Lumumba's place. But there has to be one.

 

[Diocletus]

I have to laugh at the idea that this is a crime scene. Have you ever seen one, LJ? A real crime scene is distinguished by having everything tossed around randomly in complete disorder without discriminating between things that are evidence of what happened and things that aren't.

You mean like the downstairs apartment?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

HemaTrace is unlikely to produce a false negative

QUESTION - Perfect! And for what concerns the verification if it were or less of blood? ANSWER - You can not do it because the luminol, in fact, as I said before is a reactive chemical that reacts with various substances not only with blood, it reacts with some detergents day everyday ... QUESTION - Yes, yes, we know, we have also seen in the observations of the consultants of Defense in connection with the ... ANSWER - Yes. And it was, say, also highlighted by the tests carried out in our laboratories; that a determination can then track sampled in the laboratory, and highlighted the luminol, to determine whether or not the nature of blood, practically it is very risky because, being the trace of luminol by definition a track completely invisible to the naked eye so small, if it were a trace of blood would still be a blood trail that I would draw attention to the luminol - because the eye does not see it - so it's such an amount so small that I, despite being able to analyze, however, the track with a test that will show me whether or not the nature of blood, I would risk to get false negatives that is a test ...

The reported lower limits of detection for HemaTrace are considerably better than 1 part in 1,000,000. The chances of obtaining a false negative are not high IMO.