Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

Forensic Laboratory Handbook on fluorescence versus color change tests

Machiavelli,

Over course of several continuation threads, two of us posted remarks to the effect that one follows up fluorescent or luminescent tests with colorimetric ones. I have posted this at least twice before: “Either luminol or fluorescein can be sprayed onto large surfaces such as walls or floors and the positive areas areas marked for further testing. Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible…One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH [phenolphthalein] and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason fluorescein or luminol positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests.”
The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice (Humana Press, 2006)
Chapter 1 Serology and DNA, by Lisa A. Gefrides, NS and Katherine E. Welch, MS

The color change presumptive tests to which the authors quoted above refer include phenolphthalein and tetramethylbenzidene (TMB). Sarah Gino noted in her testimony that in her experience luminol-positive areas give positive reactions to TMB 50% of the time (Massei, English translation, p, 258). I am bringing this up because there is continuing confusion among the PG community about luminol and TMB. If the only reason why TMB is sometimes negative when luminol is positive were that TMB is less sensitive, there would literally be no reason to use it.

 

[carbonjam72]

delete

 

[Dan O.]

Thank you, it is the first time I see this whole report (if it is the whole report).
So far only some newspaper excerpts were available for me.

But it is weaker than I thought.

Simply there is no proof in it that Naruto was actually started.
Only an "ultima apertura" metadata time stamp. Which is a simple last access, not necessarily made by a video player. Could have been simply a P2P download access.
...

Hey Bolint, what is the translation of "ultima apertura"?

It is not the "last access date" that the file system maintains and which the Encase software that the postal idiots ran looked at. "ultima apertura" translates to "last opening" which is metadata maintained by Spotlight and intended to show the last human activity associated with a file. The Naruto file was accessed by the P2P system much later and that is why the Last Access timestamp was not in the window that the postals were looking at.

I had thought this was discussed last time you were here. Have you caught Machiavelli's reboot bug?

 

[Kauffer]

Luminol/TMB

My dispute is with you, certainly not with scientific papers.
I'd remark this: actually I didn't happen to find any scientific article claiming that TMB should be a necessary second step after a luminol presumptive test.
Look at the abstract of the famous Webb, Creamer et al. :

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



The authors called Hemastix one of the "most common" presumptive test (Hemastix is what they call "most common", not the liquidTMB + Peroxide test).
They do not call Hemastix a "second step", but instead a "suitable alternative".
Do you get the word alternative?

This is what actual literature says.
It's Webb & Creamer those who are lecturing, not me.

But Webb says it IS suitable. You have been telling us it is not suitable. This doesn't help you. What does this paper say about confirmatory testing?

But which test did Stefanoni use? It's no good you talking about pears if she's eating apples.

If we could demonstrate it wasn't Hemastix but a superior test, how would that change your position?

 

[Machiavelli]

That's interesting. The company publishes sensitivity data and there are also references given for specificity, if someone who can interpret this data would care to look

http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/compare.htm#2

Hematrace sensitivity can be defended to 0.05 ug/ml. What does that mean in layman's terms?

In layman terms this would mean a blood dilution of about 1:2million/2.5million, since a red cell would contain 27-30 picograms of Hemoglobin.

But the protocol for the reading of ABAcard requires that a small fraction of the collected swab (no more than 3 square millimeters) is placed into a 300 microliter buffer solution and micro-centrifuged, and and it's this final solution what will be tested and needs to have the 0.05 ug/ml hemoglobin concentration.
So a sample would undergo this proces of reduction and dilution before being tested.
It is anyway unknown whether the ABAcard test was used, or whether a confirmatory test was performed at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

But Webb says it IS suitable. You have been telling us it is not suitable. This doesn't help you. (...)

Any rational person can understand this paper confirmes exactly what I've said.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Over course of several continuation threads, two of us posted remarks to the effect that one follows up fluorescent or luminescent tests with colorimetric ones. I have posted this at least twice before: “Either luminol or fluorescein can be sprayed onto large surfaces such as walls or floors and the positive areas areas marked for further testing. Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible…One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH [phenolphthalein] and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason fluorescein or luminol positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests.”
The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice (Humana Press, 2006)
Chapter 1 Serology and DNA, by Lisa A. Gefrides, NS and Katherine E. Welch, MS (...)

It should be clear, by now, that the papers like the Tobe, Creamer et al. (2007) disprove the reasons ("for this reason") suggested in the manuals like the one above.
In fact, the most recent scientific articles go in the direction contrary to the handbooks you cite such as the Gefrides, Welch et al., and make these handbook explanations look obsolete.
Moreover, in previous literature, authors used to not suggest TMB as colorimetric test, they prefered instead different kinds of colorimetric tests, and they recommended those they believed to be more specific methods; read for example Cox M (1991):

(...) The findings of this study indicate that the phenolphthalein and the leucomalachite green tests are the most specific and that the tetramethylbenzidine and orthotolidine tests are the most sensitive of the group. The author concludes that the phenolphthalein test is the best single test for evaluating suspected bloodstains (...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1955838

 

[Kauffer]

Any rational person can understand this paper confirmes exactly what I've said.

You've said rather a lot. Which part do you think Webb confirms?

 

[carbonjam72]

Is there actually a "Machiavelli Room" in the basement of the Perugia Questura, filled with computers and fully staffed with beefy, mustachioed Italian researchers pounding away at google screens to gather and analyze all the info our Mach seems to have at his fingertips?

Is anyone else amazed at this display of renaissancian dexterity?

Well I'll say it if no one else will; Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Machiavelli!

 

[Numbers]

from The right to a fair trial (2006) by Mole and Harby {a pamphlet issued by the ECHR/CoE}:

A word of warning must be given about the Article 6 case-law.
Since no complaint will be held admissible by the Court unless all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, almost all cases alleging
violations of Article 6 will have proceeded to the highest national
courts before reaching Strasbourg. The Court will frequently find
no violation of Article 6 because it considers that the proceedings
“taken as a whole” were fair, as a higher court was able to rectify
the errors of the lower court. It is therefore all too easy to fall into
the trap of thinking that a particular procedural defect complies
with Convention standards because it was not found to violate the
Convention by the Strasbourg Court. But this will often be
because it was rectified, at least in part, by a higher court. Judges
sitting in lower courts are responsible for ensuring compliance
with Article 6 in the proceedings currently before them. They
cannot rely on the possibility that a higher court may rectify their errors. {My emphasis.}
{Copied the above from a post I had made at IIP.}

 

[Bill Williams]

Why is it that for the pro-guilt lobby, all exculpatory evidence is really a coverup organized by AK or RS?

There's now evidence found in analyzing RS's computer showing that the prosecution cheated - but wait, Raffaele cooked his computer that way to coverup his crime.

AK staged a break in, in exactly the manner even Judge Nencini admits is Rudy Guede's signature.

Even Machiavelli has AK being able to "choose not to sleep", so as to be able to fool interrogators.

Eventually it begins to look like the lobby has an agenda.

Can you think of more? Oh yes, the defence never asked for the EDFs.

Now now, Bill - you're going to set Machiavelli account off on the sleeping issue. Fully 40 hours up and a sexing and a manipulating and a stabbing and a murdering and a cleaning and a spinning stories. That's a helluva achievement. It's her supernatural energy that makes me feel so weary. I wonder what Vibio feels about it?

I believe this incarnation of Machiavelli will not try to tackle the sleep deprivation issue again. M. may wish to correct me, though, in that last time it was that M. discerned, merely through Amanda Knox's writings, that she had the ability to choose not to sleep. And more than this, therefore, go into the Nov 5/6 interrogation refreshed and ready to do psychic-battle with the police; and being quite successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the PLE.

You see, this is simply another of what bolint started - for bolint, it must have been Raffaele, a trained computer scientist himself, who staged his laptop/harddrive to look like the PLE had botched the analysis of it too.

Now, acc. to the pro-guilt lobby, it is actually Amanda's fault that the PLE went so wrong in running off and arresting Lumumba. It's Amanda's fault that the PLE declared case-closed on behavioural clues only, as the PLE bragged at the time.

Don't bother with the issue that a real evil criminal genuis, after staging a break-in to look like Rudy Guede did it (as per Judge Nencini), then proceeded to finger someone else at interrogation.

A real evil-genius would have simply gone on the weekend, namely fled-the-scene like....... Rudy Guede did.

The problem with the lobby lobbing this all at Raffaele and Amanda is that it eventually strains credulity, and Occam's Razor suggests a simpler solution - the PLE simply botched the investigation, just like all the independent analysts say - and so far these are Italian analysts, just not connected to the court process.

When does the other shoe drop? Maybe this-Machavelli MIGHT want to have another shot at the issue of Amanda being able to choose not to sleep.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've said rather a lot. Which part do you think Webb confirms?

That TMB is more sentitive and more specific than luminol, and that it reacts with the same substances (all this together with other papers like Tobe et al.) and thus, that it makes no sense to assume it should be a necessary "second step", neither allows to deduce that a second test with TMB should have a logical consequence in probative terms, while instead it implies that a low blood concentration would be detected by luminol but not by TMB.

But the main point that you should never forget about, is that of TMB being "indirect" (not on the stain) versus luminol being "direct".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Swander and Stites on Hematrace

Connie J. Swander, and Jennifer G. Stites of the Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reported that Hematrace was able to detect blood diluted 1:16,777,216.

 

[Bill Williams]

But Webb says it IS suitable. You have been telling us it is not suitable. This doesn't help you. (...)

Any rational person can understand this paper confirmes exactly what I've said.

By this you mean that if this fictional person believes the paper confirms your opinions, then they are rational.

But I get the feeling that what you mean is that if this fictional person believes the paper denies your opinions, then they are irrational.

This may sound like confirmation bias; but you can demonstrate that it is not by providing actual citations.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe this incarnation of Machiavelli will not try to tackle the sleep deprivation issue again. M. may wish to correct me, though, in that last time it was that M. discerned, merely through Amanda Knox's writings, that she had the ability to choose not to sleep. And more than this, therefore, go into the Nov 5/6 interrogation refreshed and ready to do psychic-battle with the police; and being quite successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the PLE.

There was no need to be "refreshed" and there was no "psychic-battle".

There was, actually, not even an interrogation taking place during most on Knox's false testimony, since the most elaborate parts of Knox's calunnia take place within the 05:45 spontaneous statement before a magistrate (no questioning, no threats, no police battle) and in her hand written notes.

 

[LondonJohn]

My dispute is with you, certainly not with scientific papers.
I'd remark this: actually I didn't happen to find any scientific article claiming that TMB should be a necessary second step after a luminol presumptive test.
Look at the abstract of the famous Webb, Creamer et al. :

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



The authors called Hemastix one of the "most common" presumptive test (Hemastix is what they call "most common", not the liquidTMB + Peroxide test).
They do not call Hemastix a "second step", but instead a "suitable alternative".
Do you get the word alternative?
This is what actual literature says.
It's Webb & Creamer those who are lecturing, not me.

It seems that you don't get the word alternative......
"Alternative" means "could be used instead of". It very specifically does not mean "could be used following". It means that Luminol and Hemastix are similar tests with similar objectives: a first-run test to detect the possible presence of blood.

Again, it feels like I (and others) am talking into a vacuum when trying to explain to you the facts on this issue. The fact is that Hemastix is an in-field alternative to Luminol as a first-run test (exactly as these papers explain). The fact is that the 2-part TMB test is the required follow-up test to a positive Luminol outcome. The fact is that the 2-part TMB test is not an alternative to the Luminol test, but rather that it is an adjunct and expansion to Luminol, which fulfills the function of determining whether the Luminol positive is a true blood positive or a false positive caused by numerous substances other than blood.

 

[LondonJohn]

But Webb says it IS suitable. You have been telling us it is not suitable. This doesn't help you. What does this paper say about confirmatory testing?

But which test did Stefanoni use? It's no good you talking about pears if she's eating apples.

If we could demonstrate it wasn't Hemastix but a superior test, how would that change your position?

Once again, there's a critical distinction to be drawn between the Hemastix TMB test and the 2-part TMB test.

Hemastix is a suitable alternative to Luminol. It fulfills much the same function as Luminol, in that it can quickly and easily be used in the field to determine whether blood may be present on a particular area. However, because the two parts of the test are combined on the Hemastix stick, it allows for a large number of false positives (i.e. you get a positive result but it's been caused by a substance other than blood). In this regard it's very similar to Luminol.

So whether you use Luminol or Hemastix for your first-run quick-and-dirty test, the logical next step is to conduct the proper 2-part TMB test. This allows for the elimination of all of the false positives inherent in both Luminol and Hemastix tests.

In summary: Hemastix TMB is a suitable alternative to Luminol as a first-run test. Hemastix is not suitable as a follow-on test after a Luminol positive. The 2-part TMB test is suitable as a follow-on test following either a Luminol positive or a Hemastix positive.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) The fact is that the 2-part TMB test is the required follow-up test to a positive Luminol outcome. The fact is that the 2-part TMB test is not an alternative to the Luminol test, but rather that it is an adjunct and expansion to Luminol, which fulfills the function of determining whether the Luminol positive is a true blood positive or a false positive caused by numerous substances other than blood.

1. Your claim that the s.c. two-part test is "hugely more specific" appears to be comletely unsupported. There is no scientific study in support of this.

2. The hypothetical existence of "better" TMB tests would be completely irrelevant. You don't seem to understand this irrelevance. This is maybe because you think you could "play" a card like "incompetence" against the forensics, if you could find that the "protocol" was to make another type of test, in order to make a case for the defendants innocence. But this argument is wrong.

 

[Kauffer]

It should be clear, by now, that the papers like the Tobe, Creamer et al. (2007) disprove the reasons ("for this reason") suggested in the manuals like the one above.
In fact, the most recent scientific articles go in the direction contrary to the handbooks you cite such as the Gefrides, Welch et al., and make these handbook explanations look obsolete.
Moreover, in previous literature, authors used to not suggest TMB as colorimetric test, they prefered instead different kinds of colorimetric tests, and they recommended those they believed to be more specific methods; read for example Cox M (1991):



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1955838

No sorry - there is an updated version of "The Forensic Handbook" cited by Chris Halkides, from 2011. Gefrides' position with regard to following a fluorescent test with a columetric test is the same. It is not out of date. Her chapter is here:

http://www.springer.com/cda/content...618713-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1034561-p174018742

The relevant section on presumptive tests is on page 24/25. Here is an extract:

"Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason, fluorescein- or luminol-positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests. Another problem with the light-based tests is that they are typically used on very faint stains. Spraying a chemical onto an already weak stain may dilute the stain even further, which could then lessen the chances of obtaining DNA from the sample."

 

[carbonjam72]

Bumping this request because I think its a reasonable and fair. If Hellman is supposedly wrong, lets see where, and how any other judge handled the same issue.

If the judges are to believed, then kindly pick an issue

Originally Posted by Numbers
The most likely reason was that he did not want to embarrass the police.
There is an obligation to admit evidence from the defense according to Italian law (CCP 190) and the Italian Constitution (Article 111). It is also a violation of ECHR Article 6.3 not to admit defense evidence.

I didn't see it so much before, but I notice it now. They pro-guilt crowd views the convicting judges as fair and rational, and Hellman as biased and corrupt.

The pro-innocence crowd view the situation exactly reversed.

The test of these competing views ought to be simply by referring to the motivation reports issued by the various judges. And compare the arguments.

Despite many 'pro-guilt' posters here and elsewhere claims as to the unreliability of Hellman, and the wisdom of all contrary judicial reasonings, I don't recall the 'pro-guilt' folks actually posting direct quotes from these convicting motivation reports in support of their arguments, OR printing quotes from Hellman to support their rejection of acquittal.

Maybe Mach, Bolint, Tsig, Couldsdon, GrifM, Vibio (of recent meritorious translating fame) or others, would take any issue they feel Hellman got wrong, and any of the convicting judges got right, and cite specifically the arguments in the judicial opinions that support their belief.

I'd settle for any of them, Matteini, (forget his name, Richardie?), Micheli, Massei, ISC reversal, Nencini, or any of the Guede judges. Really, take any issue of import, or claimed import. Anything at all.

(Let's put aside the fact that many of the convicting judges are actually incompatible with each other on many specifics, let's just see how they (any one at a time) stack up against Hellman, in their own words).

I think it would be a fascinating exercise. Or is it too much trouble to offer proof more definite then, "I have a feeling...", "those eyes", "that behavior", etc.