Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Brief Summary

This discussion is becoming extremely interesting.
Numbers is researching ECtHR cases that only a fool could describe as irrelevant.
Vibio, an Italian citizen and speaker and excellent translator to idiomatic English says Amanda was in the kitchen while the murder was committed.
Machiavelli says 2 from 8 counts in Italian law require proof of forensic connection to the act of murder.
Mignini is busted by his own admission for prosecuting with no physical evidence tying Amanda to the act.

Meanwhile PMF workshops in an echo chamber the sheer speed and efficacy with which this young woman, who by the admission of the only two Italian natives who post on this discussion board has no physical connection to this extraditable crime, will be seized, held in Seatac prison, and flown to her new situation with noone noticing.

This is what I see from a distance.

 

[anglolawyer]

I like your last case, Numbers. Also your observation about the number of pages thing. There are guilters out there who actually think the evidence is more compelling the more pages there are.

 

[Numbers]

I like your last case, Numbers. Also your observation about the number of pages thing. There are guilters out there who actually think the evidence is more compelling the more pages there are.

They are confusing "the mass of the motivation report in kilograms" with "the weight of the evidence".

 

[Numbers]

What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge. You can safely predict that if latent stains are highly diluted (which is somehow in the nature of latent stains) blood won't be detected by other tests.
But the point you seem to miss is another one.
It is only up to the judge to determine what evidence means, like to conclude if latent stains are blood or not. There is no requirement that some other discipline determines that.
A judge may ask a scientist about alternative substances: do they also react with TMB? Was any of those substance found on the scene? At the end it will be the judge who concludes whether there is evidence that other alternatives are plausible. The conclusion may be based on information that is nor necessarily about chemistry or substances, it might be about context or place or shape or any other matter ir subject.
This is the point.

Mach,

The point is that it is a violation of defendant's rights as established in the European Convention of Human Rights to issue arbitrary judicial rulings. A judicial ruling contrary to established, scientifically valid forensics is arbitrary.

By the way, do you have any information on the jurisprudence question I had asked you about previously? I would really appreciate learning more about that.

 

[Samson]

I like your last case, Numbers. Also your observation about the number of pages thing. There are guilters out there who actually think the evidence is more compelling the more pages there are.

It seems reasonable to suggest that a simple proof will require less verbiage than a complicated proof. Anyone on this board that has not considered the 1400 pages required to create the fiction that Sarah Scazzi was murdered by her cousin and her aunt, when her uncle had shown the authorities where he placed the body, and that he had killed her himself, will be more or less pleased with the brevity of Hellman. 140 pages.

 

[Numbers]

Brief Summary

This discussion is becoming extremely interesting.
Numbers is researching ECtHR cases that only a fool could describe as irrelevant.
Vibio, an Italian citizen and speaker and excellent translator to idiomatic English says Amanda was in the kitchen while the murder was committed.
Machiavelli says 2 from 8 counts in Italian law require proof of forensic connection to the act of murder.
Mignini is busted by his own admission for prosecuting with no physical evidence tying Amanda to the act.

Meanwhile PMF workshops in an echo chamber the sheer speed and efficacy with which this young woman, who by the admission of the only two Italian natives who post on this discussion board has no physical connection to this extraditable crime, will be seized, held in Seatac prison, and flown to her new situation with noone noticing.

This is what I see from a distance.

Amanda was in the kitchen at Raffaele's apartment. She may have been singing.


Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
Someone's in the kitchen I know
Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
Strummin' on the old banjo!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I've_Been_Working_on_the_Railroad

"I've Been Working on the Railroad" is an American folk song. The first published version appeared as "Levee Song" in Carmina Princetonia, a book of Princeton University songs published in 1894.[1] The earliest known recording is by the Sandhills Sixteen, released by Victor Records in 1927

The "Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah" section, with its noticeably different melody, is actually an older song that has been absorbed by "I've Been Working on the Railroad".

 

[Bill Williams]

What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge. You can safely predict that if latent stains are highly diluted (which is somehow in the nature of latent stains) blood won't be detected by other tests.
But the point you seem to miss is another one.
It is only up to the judge to determine what evidence means, like to conclude if latent stains are blood or not. There is no requirement that some other discipline determines that.
A judge may ask a scientist about alternative substances: do they also react with TMB? Was any of those substance found on the scene? At the end it will be the judge who concludes whether there is evidence that other alternatives are plausible. The conclusion may be based on information that is nor necessarily about chemistry or substances, it might be about context or place or shape or any other matter ir subject.
This is the point.

Thank you for confirming that judges can convict on the basis of something being possible.

 

[Samson]

Amanda was in the kitchen at Raffaele's apartment. She may have been singing.


Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
Someone's in the kitchen I know
Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
Strummin' on the old banjo!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I've_Been_Working_on_the_Railroad

"I've Been Working on the Railroad" is an American folk song. The first published version appeared as "Levee Song" in Carmina Princetonia, a book of Princeton University songs published in 1894.[1] The earliest known recording is by the Sandhills Sixteen, released by Victor Records in 1927

The "Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah" section, with its noticeably different melody, is actually an older song that has been absorbed by "I've Been Working on the Railroad".

Numbers
I hope this will become folklore. Joe Hill and so on.
The problem is time. Chris Halkides refers to Lindy Chamberlain, and that was 30 years that bereaved woman was expected to be sorrowful and innocent simultaneously, yet she was an attractive and intelligent woman, whose baby was eaten by a dingo (species dog). She was intelligent enough to research and describe how dingos consume their prey, thinking as Amanda does, that a clinical and accurate recounting of facts will illuminate.

But the accused must not do this!

 

[Samson]

Thank you for confirming that judges can convict on the basis of something being possible.

Bill:
I am making lists from memory.

Judges, prosecutors lawyers, journalists:
Matteini
Micheli
Massei
Hellman
Zanetti
Nencini

Heavey

Mignini
Galati
Crini

Bongiorni
Maori
Maresca
Biscotti

Dershowitz
Callan
Simon

To be continued

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for confirming that judges can convict on the basis of something being possible.

The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative.
There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method.

It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

 

[Machiavelli]

It seems reasonable to suggest that a simple proof will require less verbiage than a complicated proof. Anyone on this board that has not considered the 1400 pages required to create the fiction that Sarah Scazzi was murdered by her cousin and her aunt, when her uncle had shown the authorities where he placed the body, and that he had killed her himself, will be more or less pleased with the brevity of Hellman. 140 pages.

This comment about the Scazzi case is extremely shallow. The uncle certain hid the body, but he was not alone; and he failed to explain how he could kill her (he gave nine contradictory versions about the fact, many of them conflicting with the autopsy report).

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm fully behind you with Webb, Tobe and Barni. If they say that when you have a positive luminol test followed by a negative TMB test and no confirmatory test for blood, that it is safe to conclude that there is blood, then I will re-evaluate my position. Perhaps they have something to say about the absence of DNA in blood samples too. Where do they write about these things?

And I can only presume that Machiavelli is not reading my posts for some reason, because I have reminded him numerous times recently that the "TMB test" referenced for comparison against Luminol in these papers is actually the quick-and-dirty combined Hemastix test. Hemastix is very specifically designed as an in-field first-line test, and as such it's designed to be used as an "either/or" against Luminol - NOT as a supplementary test with Luminol.

As I've explained to Machiavelli many times now, the critical point about Hemastix is that the TMB and the peroxide are applied to the sample simultaneously (since they are contained together on the testing stick), and it's this factor that greatly reduces Hemastix's specificity for blood. However the proper two-part lab TMB test - which is the one that should have been done by not-a-proper-doctor Stefanoni following a Luminol positive - separates the application of the TMB and the peroxide. This is crucial since it allows for the test to be vastly more specific for blood than either Luminol or Hemastix TMB (see previous posts for a fuller explanation of why....).

So when Machiavelli cites papers to support a claim that "TMB is less specific for blood than Luminol", (s)he is being either ignorant or disingenuous, since the truth is as follows: Hemastix TMB is marginally less specific for blood than Luminol, but the two-part TMB test is vastly more specific for blood than Luminol. And it's only the two-part TMB test that's germane to this discussion, since it's this test (and most assuredly not the Hemastix TMB test) that should be conducted following a Luminol positive.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a point in passing, it's instructive to re-watch the video shot by the police on the afternoon and evening of 2nd November 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDuY_gB0xQU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It's abundantly clear that the forensics goons were trampling all over the cottage floor with scant regard to preserving the scene. It's obvious that there was no protocol to find a clean pathway and stick to it, and nor was there apparently any changing of booties.

In my opinion, it's extremely likely that this activity significantly altered and compromised the crime scene, most particularly in regard to the movement of blood traces around the floor. It's obvious to me that there were almost certainly bootied goons stepping on and around the barely-dry blood in Kercher's room, then subsequently walking out into the hallway. It doesn't therefore take a genius to see how at least some of the amorphous blood-trace splodges in the hallway could easily have been deposited by the "crack" forensics team on the afternoon/evening of 2nd November.

 

[LondonJohn]

They are confusing "the mass of the motivation report in kilograms" with "the weight of the evidence".

And the added irony is that the verbose Massei and Nencini reports contain numerous contradictions and flat-out inaccuracies (in addition to the breathtaking leaps of logic and improper reasoning that crop up with astonishing regularity in those hundreds of pages).

 

[Kauffer]

Webb, Tobe and Barni

What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge. You can safely predict that if latent stains are highly diluted (which is somehow in the nature of latent stains) blood won't be detected by other tests.
But the point you seem to miss is another one.
It is only up to the judge to determine what evidence means, like to conclude if latent stains are blood or not. There is no requirement that some other discipline determines that.

A judge may ask a scientist about alternative substances: do they also react with TMB? Was any of those substance found on the scene? At the end it will be the judge who concludes whether there is evidence that other alternatives are plausible. The conclusion may be based on information that is nor necessarily about chemistry or substances, it might be about context or place or shape or any other matter ir subject.
This is the point.

So it is not safe? In English law "safe" is used routinely to indicate the basis of a proper conviction. At the Court of Appeal, when convictions are over turned, typically, the judge will report that a particular conviction is "unsafe" because of a problem with the validity or reliability of the evidence supporting the conviction, which has come to light.

What do Webb, Tobe and Barni say is "possible"? I want a clear citation that you believe supports your argument that the luminol reactions are indicative of blood. It is not the conclusions you draw from what these scientists report; I actually want to know what it is that they report, that you believe is supportive of your position.

 

[Mr Fied]

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hello all, I am a long time lurker first time poster.
I am not a highly educated scientist or lawyer, so some of the intricacies of DNA examination and rules of law pass me by. However I feel I am fairly intelligent and a fair representation of the type of person who would serve on a jury, so that is how I look at the arguments that get presented here.

Mach stated a while ago that the inconsistencies in AK and RF "stories" proved they were lying. What about prosecution inconsistencies then?
Was AK in the murder room or outside directing?
Did AK deliver the fatal blow, restrain Meredith while Rudy did it, or restrain Meredith while RS did it?
Was the murder a result of a Halloween/satanic rite, an argument over personal hygiene, a sex game, an argument over rent money or an argument over pooh?
Does any of this cause reasonable doubt?

There are 3 main pieces of evidence that I feel could help convince me of the involvement of AK and RS.
1. The bloody towels, was there anyone elses dna/blood on them?
2. The knife, any dna/blood from Meredith on there?
3. The bra clasp, was RS dna on there?
All the prosecution would have to do is re-test these and prove what was on there.....oh wait. Reasonable doubt?

Vibio, like I said earlier I am not a highly educated scientist but I do know how to use a dictionary. Even I can tell what the difference is between the meaning of presumptive and confirmatory. The luminol tests even showed up spots on the investigators booties and the evidence markers. If the confirmatory tests were negative for blood, would you not agree that this is at least reasonable doubt that blood was present?

 

[Kauffer]

Luminol

And I can only presume that Machiavelli is not reading my posts for some reason, because I have reminded him numerous times recently that the "TMB test" referenced for comparison against Luminol in these papers is actually the quick-and-dirty combined Hemastix test. Hemastix is very specifically designed as an in-field first-line test, and as such it's designed to be used as an "either/or" against Luminol - NOT as a supplementary test with Luminol.

As I've explained to Machiavelli many times now, the critical point about Hemastix is that the TMB and the peroxide are applied to the sample simultaneously (since they are contained together on the testing stick), and it's this factor that greatly reduces Hemastix's specificity for blood. However the proper two-part lab TMB test - which is the one that should have been done by not-a-proper-doctor Stefanoni following a Luminol positive - separates the application of the TMB and the peroxide. This is crucial since it allows for the test to be vastly more specific for blood than either Luminol or Hemastix TMB (see previous posts for a fuller explanation of why....).

So when Machiavelli cites papers to support a claim that "TMB is less specific for blood than Luminol", (s)he is being either ignorant or disingenuous, since the truth is as follows: Hemastix TMB is marginally less specific for blood than Luminol, but the two-part TMB test is vastly more specific for blood than Luminol. And it's only the two-part TMB test that's germane to this discussion, since it's this test (and most assuredly not the Hemastix TMB test) that should be conducted following a Luminol positive.

This is what I have from Webb - one of the sources mentioned by the Machiavelli account:

"A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques." (Webb, Creamer, Quickenden, 2006)

Abstract

"Presumptive blood detection tests are used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood or to investigate suspicious stains. Through the years, a number of articles have been published on the popular techniques of the day. However, there is no single paper that critiques and compares the five most common presumptive blood detection tests currently in use: luminol, phenolphthalein (Kastle-Meyer), leucomalachite green, Hemastix and the forensic light source. The present authors aimed to compare the above techniques with regard to their sensitivity, ease of use and safety. The luminol test was determined to be the most sensitive of the techniques, while Hemastix is a suitable alternative when the luminol test is not appropriate."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16645959/

Nothing about specificity in this extract - nothing to indicate the degree of reliability the authors may ascribe to any presumptive test.

However, Webb states that Hemastix is 'suitable'; Machiavelli says it is not - but there is nothing here that explains how to interpret luminol positive/TMB negative results.

I would be interested to know in what circumstances the use of luminol is "not appropriate", according to the authors.

 

[Planigale]

His position is that since Luminol is a very accurate presumptive test, that because it is more accurate than the confirmatory tests, that somehow it becomes no longer presumptive.

Mach fails to differentiate between sensitivity and specificity. everyone agrees Luminol is sensitive. That is if blood is present it is very likely Luminol will detect it. The issue of contention is the specificity. That is to say how certain can we be that what is found is blood (and how certain need we be?).

For comparison we do mammograms on women to detect breast cancer early, mammography has a sensitivity of 90%; it will detect 90% of cancers. So one has ones first mammogram at age 50 it shows a cancer, how likely is it that you have a cancer? Only 10% of women with a breast cancer on mammography have a cancer confirmed at biopsy the specificity is low and a confirmatory biopsy needs to be done prior to surgery / chemo etc. Now every so often the biopsy will be wrong and if there has been a mastectomy no cancer is found. This happens so rarely, the specificity is so high that it is a risk worth taking. But you would not embark on treatment on the basis of a mammogram. For you boys the PSA test for prostate cancer is even worse.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166019

So sensitivity is irrelevant, specificity is the issue.

Accuracy and precision are technical terms related to measurement. In simple terms if you measured the height of someone using a 12 inch ruler it would fairly imprecise, each time you did the measurement you would get a different value. If you used a stadiometer with a tape measure (where you stand against a wall and a pointer is brought down against your head) you get a more precise measurement. But which is more accurate? Suppose you took of your heals when measured by ruler, but left them on when measured by stadiometer, the less precise measurement would be more accurate that is closer to the true value. I do not think that one can apply accuracy or precision to Luminol, since this is a binary value blood yes / no rather than a quantitative value.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

The point is that it is a violation of defendant's rights as established in the European Convention of Human Rights to issue arbitrary judicial rulings. A judicial ruling contrary to established, scientifically valid forensics is arbitrary.

By the way, do you have any information on the jurisprudence question I had asked you about previously? I would really appreciate learning more about that.

But this has nothing to do with judge's discretional assessment of evidence. Evidence established by judges instead than by a scientific expert does not equate to arbitrary judgment. The notion of "scientifically valid forensics" does not belong to the framework of human rights. Non arbitrary does not mean proved by "scientific" evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

Evidence

But this has nothing to do with judge's discretional assessment of evidence. Evidence established by judges instead than by a scientific expert does not equate to arbitrary judgment. The notion of "scientifically valid forensics" does not belong to the framework of human rights. Non arbitrary does not mean proved by "scientific" evidence.

There is no such thing as "evidence established by judges". Evidence is introduced to court; in Italian law the judge is entitled to ascribe weight to individual pieces of evidence; he must be "internally convinced" etc. He DOES NOT establish evidence. Judges reach conclusions from the evidence.

A distinct problem arises when a judge is, as in this case, mistaken about what the evidence is - if he thinks it is conclusive when it is not or he simply does not understand it, as with Nencini an the luminol/TMB results, then you are going to get bad decisions. In this case the judge, demonstrably did not have sufficient intellectual capacity to understand and ascribe weight to, evidence heard in court.