Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

This, plus the (bogus and unreliable) Quintavalle sighting, played - in my opinion - a significant role in Massei's and Nencini's decisions to find Knox (and by extension Sollecito) guilty.

I believe the judges reasoned as follows:

"We have (or at least we believe we have....) solid proof that Knox was outside Sollecito's apartment at 8.18pm on 1st November, and that she was in Quintavalle's shop at around 8am on 2nd November. Yet Knox claimed - and continues to claim - that she was definitely inside Sollecito's apartment at both these times.

"We judges do not accept that someone could be honestly mistaken as to their whereabouts in this fashion - we believe that Knox must have remembered being outside Sollecito's apartment at some point on the evening of the murder, and that similarly she must remember getting up to go to Quintavalle's shop early on the morning after the murder.

"Therefore, we judges believe that Knox is deliberately choosing to lie about her whereabouts on these two occasions - occasions on which we have solid proof that she was not where she claimed to be. And what reason could there be to lie if Knox had nothing to do with the murder? Therefore we view these lies by Knox as significant evidence of her participation in the murder."


Of course the truth is that Knox very probably was within Sollecito's apartment at 8.18pm on 1st November (and it's certainly false to claim that the phone evidence proves she must have been elsewhere), and Quintavalle's claims are laughably unreliable. Therefore there's every likelihood that Knox was exactly where she claimed she was at both these times: inside Sollecito's apartment.

I can see why she would lie about going to Quintavalle's place, but why the one about being on her way to Patrick's? Why suppress that? Also, what time did her shift start and how long was the walk? Would she be well on her way at 20.18?

Why people might tell the specific lies they do is generally as revealing as the fact they lie at all. What sensible reason can there be for the 20:18 lie?

 

[Machiavelli]

The highlighted text: that a confirmative test can only confirm -- that statement is not correct. A confirmative test, if it scores as positive, shows confirmation - that is, blood is there, in the application of interest. If it scores as negative, the test shows that, with a very high degree of confidence, no blood is present.

From: http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject02/pdi_s02_m02_02_b.htm

The method of choice today is the ABAcard® HemaTrace test strips manufactured by Abacus Diagnostics, Inc. Stain extract is applied to the bottom of the test strip, where any human hemoglobin present in the extract will combine with a monoclonal antihuman hemoglobin antibody. The antibody is labeled with a dye. Any antibody-antigen formed then migrates through an absorbent membrane to the test area of the strip. The test area has an immobilized polyclonal antihuman hemoglobin that will capture the Ag-Ab complex to form an Ab-Ag-Ab sandwich. The pink dye becomes visible as a band in the test region at concentrations of human hemoglobin above about 0.05 µg/ml. An internal control consisting of human hemoglobin antibody–dye conjugate cannot bind to the antibody in the test area but is captured by an antibody in the control area. A correctly functioning positive test will therefore show two pink bands, one in the test area and one in the control area. A correctly functioning negative test will show only one pink band, in the control area. If there is any problem with the test there will be no visible bands.

The ABAcard® test has been extensively validated and shown to be sensitive, specific and rapid.


ETA: In experiments by the Michigan State Police, the ABAcard HemaTrace detected blood at a dilution exceeding 1:16,777,000

See:
http://www.4n6shop.cz/static_pages_files file/Hematrace_Michigan%20State%20Police_Connie%20Swander_Jennifer%20Stites.pdf

Sorry, but I see a gross calculation incoherence, as well as an unrealistic figure, that one seems wrong of a factor 10(4)
The presentation you quote reports a sensitivity of of 0.05 micrograms /ml of human haemoglobin. A red cell contains about 30 pg of HG, pure blood contains about 150-160 µg/ml, therefore a dilution of 0.05 µg/ml means a 1:3000 dilution ratio. Which means much less sensitive than the theoretical threshold of TMB sensitiveness.
Moreover, 1/16 million would mean about one blood cell per half centiliter, that's unrealistic, since blood is a corpuscular suspension, it wouldn't be a concentration.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is how a jury should be instructed
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii93/1991canlii93.html

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the concentration of hemoglobin in red blood cells

Sorry, but I see a gross calculation incoherence, as well as an unrealistic figure, that one seems wrong of a factor 10(4)
The presentation you quote reports a sensitivity of of 0.05 micrograms /ml of human haemoglobin. A red cell contains about 30 pg of HG, pure blood contains about 150-160 µg/ml, therefore a dilution of 0.05 µg/ml means a 1:3000 dilution ratio. Which means much less sensitive than the theoretical threshold of TMB sensitiveness.
Moreover, 1/16 million would mean about one blood cell per half centiliter, that's unrealistic, since blood is a corpuscular suspension, it wouldn't be a concentration.

Machiavelli,

You are too low by a thousand fold with respect to the concentration of hemoglobin in blood. Robert Kerber wrote, "The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mg/mL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization." (J. Chem. Education Vol. 84 No. 9 September 2007, p. 1541). Therefore, the concentration of hemoglobin is about 150 mg/mL in whole blood, assuming that blood is 40% red blood cells and 60% plasma. I covered this at my blog some time ago.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am not in a position to make this concession on behalf of crime labs throughout the world. If you are right in claiming that a sample may still be blood after testing negative for blood, then their protocols are useless and their technologies are defective. You will have to take that up with them.

I think this is your own inference, and it's a bit of a nonsense. Stefanoni is a scientists working in laboratory, Berti and Barni as well. They do not dispute that a latent blood stain can fail to match the concentration needed for a confirmatory test. It is also not possible to infer a truth from "protocols", a word that some people seem tend to abuse. It I obvious that if concentration doesn't reach the sensitiveness threshold or if the sample is not used for confirmation but for other tests (like DNA) instead, you won't have a positive confirmation. But that is no proof of absence.

I will concede that the partial footprint on the bathmat is of such poor quality that it is useless for identifying anyone.

It's a bit too little. The purpose of evidence is not only to identify, but also to assess compatibility and incompatibility. You should acknowledge that the print has features that match Sollecito and that do not match Guede; the degrees of similarity and/or difference can be noted, and should be weighted honestly.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

You are too low by a thousand fold with respect to the concentration of hemoglobin in blood. Robert Kerber wrote, "The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mg/mL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization." (J. Chem. Education Vol. 84 No. 9 September 2007, p. 1541). Therefore, the concentration of hemoglobin is about 150 mg/mL in whole blood, assuming that blood is 40% red blood cells and 60% plasma. I covered this at my blog some time ago.

Hey you are right. I miscalculated microliters instead in milliliters: a blood cell has 30 picograms, but in ml the figure is in billions not millions. However it comes out 120-150 mg per milliliter (not 340).
So a 1:16M dilution would mean anyway something like 1 blood cell every 4-5 microliters. That seems anyway unrealistic.

 

[sept79]

Quintavalle's Perjury

The following should settle the issue that Marco Quintavalle perjured himself when testifying that he saw Amanda Knox in his store on the morning of Nov. 2, 2007:


From the Hellmann-Zanetti Motivations Report:

". . . from the testimony of Inspector Volturno at the hearing of 3.13.2009 it was revealed that photographs of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were shown to Quintavalle, as they were to his staff and the other shop owners [esercenti] of the area, and that they were asked in particular whether the two had made any purchase for cleaning products, precisely because it was a line of enquiry of the investigation [punto oggetto di indagine]. Therefore Quintavalle cannot claim that he did not report to Inspector Volturno what had happened on the morning of 2 November because he was convinced that it was not a relevant fact."


From the Massei-Christiani Motivations Report:

"Let it also be added that witness Ana Maria Chiriboga, a sales-clerk in Quintavalle’s store at the time, has reported that Quintavalle asked her if she had seen Amanda Knox that morning, and Chiriboga answered in the negative (p. 74, hearing of 6-26-2009). This questions necessarily presupposes that Quintavalle had seen Amanda Knox, and not knowing whether she had purchased anything (see statement of Quintavalle cited above, from the hearing of 3-21-2009), was asking his sales-clerk in order to find out."

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh please. So what exactly DID Volturno question Quintavalle about? What Quintavalle's favourite flavour of Gelato was?

Volturno was interviewing local shopkeepers with the specific intention of finding out whether any of these shopkeepers had seen Knox and/or Sollecito buying things like cleaning products. And the only time period during which any such sighting might be relevant to the investigation would be the time between the murder itself (say 9pm on 1st November) and the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage (say 1pm on the 2nd). After all, it would be utterly irrelevant to the police investigation of the murder if some shopkeeper had seen Knox or Sollecito buying something on (say) 29th October or 3rd November.

It's therefore utterly, totally inconceivable that Volturno would not have explained to Quintavalle that the relevant time period was the night of the murder and the morning after it. He showed Quintavalle the photos and must (logically) have asked whether either Knox or Sollecito was in his store - particularly if they were buying cleaning products - in the narrow time window in question. It would have been of zero value to Volturno if Quintavalle had remembered seeing either Knox or Sollecito in his shop at any other time other than 9pm on 1st November to 1pm on 2nd November. And therefore Volturno must have referred to the relevant time period in his discussion with Quintavalle. One or both of them may deny it now, but they must be either lying or mistaken.

I suppose next you're going to assert that Volturno didn't show Quintavalle a photo of Knox (or Sollecito)......?

Absolutely not. Volturno said:1) did not question Quintavalle about whether he saw Knox or Sollecito, but only on whether they had bought specific items; 2) that his question referred to a period of severs days before the murder, not on the specific morning.
But the testimony of Volturno is readable for all on themurderofmertdithkercher site and on transcripts copies.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely not. Volturno said:1) did not question Quintavalle about whether he saw Knox or Sollecito, but only on whether they had bought specific items;

LOL. Sorry, but this crap doesn't even pass the straight-face test.

 

[MDDVS]

Hmm, why woud he ask about something as irrelevant as whether some people bought grosseries a week before the murder?

 

[Dan O.]

The blood on the handle, as seen in the photo I'm posting here,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9262[/qimg]

which I found here:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/knife-lcn-dna-evidence/
does not look like it ever bounced or rolled over.

What I see when looking at this photo (the original dsc_0173.jpg) is that the point of the knife was placed on the sheet near the big round spot. It was released from a height of a few inches leaving the imprint of the edge of the blade in a straight line. When the handle hit the bed the momentum turned the knife on its side and carried it back a few cm. The knife comes to rest with the end of the handle making the clear block shape and the flat side of the blade leaving a more diffuse curved outline.

And the knife handle imprint shows an imprint from a knife that did not bounce, it is not smeared.

This would be made on the rebound. If the back of the handle is smooth the momentum would continue sliding the knife towards the back. If the back of the handle is rough such that it can catch the sheet, the momentum reverses and the knife would land sliding forward. Between those extremes there is the possibility of exactly stoping the lateral momentum so the knife sticks the landing without smearing.

I see no apparent back sliding but a possibility of some slight forward sliding.

Was the perp wearing gloves?
If so, did he take them off at some time,
place the knife on the bed with a hand free of blood?

A burglar out on a cold november night, It would be quite reasonable for him to be wearing gloves. But the gloves would have come off before the bathroom use. The gloves were definitely off before the pillow was grabbed with a bloody hand.

When stabbed, Meredith's blood would spray out. This would coat the exposed portion of the handle and the hand holding it but if the knife was in a tight grip the blood wold not immediately reach the rest of the handle. This indicates that the knife was dropped very soon after the stabbing. The limited blood on the blade indicates that the blade of the knife was quickly wiped off first.

 

[Machiavelli]

LOL. Sorry, but this crap doesn't even pass the straight-face test.

You are saying you believe Volturno was lying? If that is what you believe, it's a different theory.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmm, why woud he ask about something as irrelevant as whether some people bought grosseries a week before the murder?

Volturno's research was focused on bleach. And was dealing with other stores too.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are saying you believe Volturno was lying? If that is what you believe, it's a different theory.

Let us say that he is actually lying. . . .What is the results in Italy of accusing somebody (judge, police, or prosecution witness) of lying?

 

[MDDVS]

Volturno's research was focused on bleach. And was dealing with other stores too.

You didn't understand my question.

 

[Diocletus]

You are saying you believe Volturno was lying? If that is what you believe, it's a different theory.

What I'm saying is that if Volturno went in and asked Qunitavalle if Knox bought bleach on Nov. 2, and Quintavalle knows that Knox was there looking at bleach Nov. 2, the answer is not going to be "no, have a good day."

So if that's what you, the prosecution, Volturno, nencini and the ISC want us to believe, then you're all full of crap.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let us say that he is actually lying. . . .What is the results in Italy of accusing somebody (judge, police, or prosecution witness) of lying?

Accusing a witness of lying is possible but pointless unless you have evidence of it. If you are the witness of say a police misconduct yourself you should submit a complaint, and you need to look like a credible person; if you don't know but just think that one witness is lying you need to find evidence, or it's not going to be effective.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I'm saying is that if Volturno went in and asked Qunitavalle if Knox bought bleach on Nov. 2, and Quintavalle knows that Knox was there looking at bleach Nov. 2, the answer is not going to be "no, have a good day."

So if that's what you, the prosecution, Volturno, nencini and the ISC want us to believe, then you're all full of crap.

Don't worry nobody cares of what you believe.

 

[MDDVS]

Don't worry nobody cares of what you believe.

Why did you answer his post then?

 

[Diocletus]

Don't worry nobody cares of what you believe.

So, why hasn't the ECtHR rejected Knox's "obviously meritless" application yet??? Huh?