Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

Sorry, that scientific articles found that luminol is far more sensitive and nor specific than TMB and that all TMB tests are indirect, is a perception?
Footprint measurements, things like these are perceptions? What Buratti actually stated is a perception?

1) Luminol is more sensitive than TMB but not much more.
2) You have provided no evidence that Luminol is more specific than the two part TMB test.
3) I am not sure what you mean by indirect, all these tests detect non specific oxidising activity. The two part TMB test detects a) the presence of an oxidising agent (I assume this is what you mean) which is a false positive, b) after addition an 'oxygen' source enzymatic activity - from blood which would be the indirect? reaction which is the 'true' response. Luminol will not distinguish between 'direct' false reactions and the 'indirect' reaction.

Mach do remember that you thought DNA was a protein and spent years arguing about DNA tests without knowing what DNA was so don't get too secure in thinking you know everything.

 

[Planigale]

You can perfectly see there are facts cited, not just perceptions. Literature findings are facts. You may draw different inferences from them, but we are talking about facts and inferences not about perceptions.
Measurements on bathmat: those exist, they are facts. They may be wrong, but you would need to show what the correct ones are. While instead the assumption that measurements are unreliable is an ex post consideration. First you have data. Then you say : "these data don't matter, it's impossible to measure a fuzzy mat..." etc. Yet, those data exist, the consideration comes subsequently. I bet the data wouldn't appear so unreliable to many pro-Knoxes if they matched Guede.
Luminol prints: there is actually no probable innocent alternative. Given that an alternative would consist in indicating what something is, not what is not. "it is not blood" is not an alternative, "not blood" is not a substance. This is not the only problem: there is also no indication about what event may have caused the prints, and why the analogy with the prints in diluted blood on the bathmat. And the "lack of confirmation" of blood, no DNA on some prints, may be equated to lack of DNA from Guede in the bathroom where he supposedly washed his hands, while having cuts on his finger. Doesn't this "point away" from Guede I you follow the same logic?

Nonsense. You have a universal set of things. It can be divided into things that are blood and those that are non blood. Blood is 'oxygen' carrying liquid from animals. It is not limited to Kercher blood. Non blood things can be sub divided into non blood things that react with Luminol and those that don't. You have a probability not certainty. You seem to have trouble dealing with this. The test is not dichotomous the result is not 'Kercher blood' or 'Not Kercher blood'. Then you have to consider those things that give a positive Luminol result but do not give a positive TMB test - this includes arguably blood at a critical level of dilution - but in this case you need to argue how it came to be so dilute. At this point the likelihood is that it is non blood substance. Even taking the case for highly dilute blood. There is no time stamp - it could be old - it could be non human (no human specific test done - from meat that dripped in the hall). If we take the increasingly unlikely argument that it is highly dilute blood of MK, then there is an entirely innocent explanation due to the known fact that AK stood on a blood stained bath mat after having a shower.

One has to consider all potential explanations, consider their likelihood and NOT just choose the explanation that favours your case and declare that one the correct one.

Who do you think is likely to have made the most accurate measurements? The police fingerprint experts examining a non orthogonal photograph of the bath mat without a rectangular scale, or the defence expert directly taking measurements from the bath mat? How likely do you really think that a footprint done in viscous ink onto paper on a hard surface would have identical to the mm measurements as a foot print onto soft absorbent material with a non viscous fluid? Do you worry that the Police used the method of a discredited scientist implicated in multiple false identifications from footprints? You choose the set of measurements you wish to believe but the defence measurements are equally 'facts'. The defence measurements were done in a better method and so IMHO are those that should be considered most accurate. They were done by someone proven to be accurate in print analysis - re Guede shoe print. The police print analysts are proven incompetent in that misidentified the shoe print. The nature of error is identical - the police identified the print as belonging to the suspect, even though close examination shows this is untrue. So why believe demonstrably incompetent people doing measurements on a poorly taken photo analysed using a discredited methodology? the answer is because it agrees with your preconceptions.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well said, Planigale. Spoken like a scientist. To a lawyer, as to any reasonable layman also, the fact she tested with TMB, got a negative result and suppressed the fact is, to put it at its lowest, telling as is the inexplicable failure to conduct any confirmatory testing at all.

 

[anglolawyer]

This oddness was also noted by CNN's Drew Griffin. In an afterthought following his 2010 Mignini interview, Griffin noted that a strange thing happened the next day.

On the street of Perugia, the two of them bumped into each other. Mignini asked Griffin if he'd appeared believable the day before.

Of course this could mean many things. Maybe Mignini has an inferiority complex which he covers with courtroom bluster.

But the look on Griffin's face was telling. It was like Griffin couldn't believe the odd things this case seemed to shoot out of nowhere.

Since we are bandying Mignini anecdotes about and this one is relevant to LJ's and Kaosium's speculations, I should repeat the story about Malcolm Moore (Daily Telegraph) coming upon Mignini shortly after Patrick's arrest and asking him if the cops were sure of his involvement as all who knew Patrick were incredulous. Mignini figuratively tapped his nose and confided that there was a huge file of stuff on Lumumba.

 

[Kauffer]

So you admit there is no evidence to make this projections on Patrick Lumumba, an innocent person who was never found lying. Yet there are people here ready to construe the most venomous insinuations about him, speculate about imaginary dark secrets of his life and assume he must be lying and willing to pay lip service to serve the interest of some obscure plot.
Interesting how you "see" innocent people. Maybe just black people, since you don't seem so keen to throw insinuations about Sollecito's family (who, indeed, were involved in obscure and illicit plots).
And well, I thought the story of health inspectors with their own rats was fun. But now I am thinking about the potential of prejudice behind those light hearted stories. Of course if you set this kind of invention in place of reality on any point you would build your own world. It's a world that would work on your own postulates that you don't feel the need to back with evidence.
There was no evidence that a witness was lying. There has been one person who declared the bar was closed - no need to conclude he was lying - but several others declared it was open and the police itself maintained it was open, since they controlled the receipts sequence.

The argument presented to Matteini was the opposite of the one you state. Matteini related how the timing of the receipts gave Lumumba opportunity to commit murder and the "witness" was used to "prove" that the pub was indeed closed at a time to support this contention.

What I am looking for from you is a clear understanding that the police treatment of Lumumba from arrest to the Matteini hearing was inexcusable. No lawyer, isolation - a denial of his procedural rights. There's no doubt in your mind that he was a suspect right? So you cannot use the "he was a witness" excuse to defend the police. You must agree, surely, that what we have here is a model for the treatment of suspects in Perugia. At least debate honestly and confirm that you understand that Lumumba was denied his rights as a suspect, by the police, not by anyone else and certainly not by Ms Knox.

You and your acolytes are so keen to promote the innocence of Lumumba and how he was wronged. The debate about the calunia charge is one thing; Lumumba's treatment by the police is not debateable. They did this to him - nobody else. So, say so!

 

[MichaelB]

There's more about Guede's phone here:

TACCONI SIMONE page 34

PRESIDENTE – Viene autorizzato a consultarla.
RISPOSTA – Va benissimo, grazie.
DOMANDA – Quindi se vuole…
RISPOSTA – Posso dare gli Imei di tutti i telefoni se lo ritenete opportuno, comunque diciamo sono i due telefoni di Meredith, il telefono di Raffaele Sollecito, il telefono di (Dea) Lumumba, il telefono di Amanda Knox e
successivamente ho fatto anche il telefono di Rudy Guede, tutti i telefoni che sono stati sequestrati nel corso delle indagini. Allora se ritenete necessario leggo i codici Imei che sono i codici che identificano I telefoni cellulari.

LATELLA LETTERIO – p127

DOMANDA – Avete verificato se Rudy Guede aveva disponibilità di un telefono cellulare?
RISPOSTA – In quei giorni le indagini…
DOMANDA – Diciamo dall’1 ottobre in poi.
RISPOSTA – Non ce l’aveva il telefono in quel periodo, almeno da quello che noi abbiamo potuto appurare credo che l’ultimo suo telefono a disposizione fosse a fine ottobre che ce l’avesse avuto successivamente non aveva…
DOMANDA – Sì, ma io parlo dall’1 ottobre diciamo in poi.
RISPOSTA – Ma fino al 20 di ottobre lui ha avuto un cellulare, successivamente credo…
DOMANDA – Ce l’ha avuto, diciamo fino al 20 ottobre, avete analizzato il traffico di questo telefono?
RISPOSTA – Sì, abbiamo fatto qualcosa.
DOMANDA – Avete appurato se c’era diciamo traffico telefonico fra Rudy e Amanda o fra Rudy e Raffaele?
RISPOSTA – Abbiamo fatto un controllo e i contatti detti non vi erano, tra Rudy e gli altri soggetti.
DOMANDA – Io vedo fra l’altro c’è un’annotazione sua del 13 giugno 2008 avete anche analizzato il telefono (Kocumani Ecuran)?
RISPOSTA – Sì.
DOMANDA – In particolare con riferimento al 31 ottobre voi avete analizzato le celle che sono state agganciate da Kocumani, ci può riferire cosa avete accertato?
RISPOSTA – Non mi trovo adesso l’annotazione, se la posso consultare comunque…

 

[Machiavelli]

1) Luminol is more sensitive than TMB but not much more.

Not true: luminol is much more sensitive, the papers put a distance of al least one order if magnitude but only considering direct sensitivity. TMB is indirect, this places the distance at two orders of magnitude. The authors write "far" more sensitive.

2) You have provided no evidence that Luminol is more specific than the two part TMB test.

This is not true, the theoretical limit of the most sensitive TMB test is still five times less sensitive than the theoretical threshold of luminol. Yet this is secondary: the point is irrelevant, since you would have a problem with the burden of proof. There is no evidence that a particularly sensitive TMB test was performed.

3) I am not sure what you mean by indirect, all these tests detect non specific oxidising activity. The two part TMB test detects a) the presence of an oxidising agent (I assume this is what you mean) which is a false positive, b) after addition an 'oxygen' source enzymatic activity - from blood which would be the indirect? reaction which is the 'true' response. Luminol will not distinguish between 'direct' false reactions and the 'indirect' reaction.

Indirect means that the TMB test is not really performed on the stain, and does not really come into contact with the stain, it only detects the amount of substance on the swab. This may be an aliquot much more diluted than the original stain, and is further diluted by the adding of peroxide.

Mach do remember that you thought DNA was a protein and spent years arguing about DNA tests without knowing what DNA was so don't get too secure in thinking you know everything.

I am not a biologist but I can read.

 

[Numbers]

Well said, Planigale. Spoken like a scientist. To a lawyer, as to any reasonable layman also, the fact she tested with TMB, got a negative result and suppressed the fact is, to put it at its lowest, telling as is the inexplicable failure to conduct any confirmatory testing at all.

{Highlighting added to quote.|

A quibble: No confirmatory testing was reported.

The TMB testing was conducted but:
1) the information that TMB testing was conducted, and
2) the results of the TMB testing
were withheld from the defense for almost the entire length of the first-level trial (IIRC).

ETA: And the results of the TMB testing were exculpatory,

 

[Numbers]

Here is the Google Translate text of the testimony MichaelB posted:

TACCONI SIMONE page 34

PRESIDENT - is authorized to consult.
ANSWER - That's fine, thanks.
QUESTION - So if you want ...
ANSWER - I can give the IMEI of all phones if you deem it appropriate, however, say they are the two phones Meredith, the phone Raffaele Sollecito, the phone (Goddess) Lumumba, the phone of Amanda Knox and
then I also did the phone Rudy Guede, all phones that were seized during the investigation. So if you feel you need to read the IMEI codes are codes that identify the cell phones.

LATELLA LETTERIO – p127


QUESTION - Have you checked if Rudy Guede had availability of a cell phone?
ANSWER - In those days the investigation ...
QUESTION - say from 1 October onwards.
ANSWER - Do not had the phone at the time, at least from what we could ascertain think his last phone was available in late October that there had been subsequently had not ...
QUESTION - Yes, but I speak from October 1 onwards we say.
ANSWER - But until October 20 he had a cell phone, then I think ...
QUESTION - There has been, say up to 20 October, have analyzed the traffic of this phone?
ANSWER - Yes, we did something.
QUESTION - Do you know if they say there was telephone traffic between Rudy and Amanda or between Rudy and Raffaele?
ANSWER - We did a check and said there were contacts between Rudy and the other parties.
QUESTION - I see among other things there's a record of 13 June 2008 have also analyzed the phone (Kocumani Ecuran)?
ANSWER - Yes.
QUESTION - In particular with reference to 31 October you have analyzed the cells that were engaged by Kocumani, we can report what you found?
REPLY - I am now not the record, if I can see anyway ...

 

[Machiavelli]

The argument presented to Matteini was the opposite of the one you state. Matteini related how the timing of the receipts gave Lumumba opportunity to commit murder and the "witness" was used to "prove" that the pub was indeed closed at a time to support this contention.

What I am looking for from you is a clear understanding that the police treatment of Lumumba from arrest to the Matteini hearing was inexcusable. No lawyer, isolation - a denial of his procedural rights. There's no doubt in your mind that he was a suspect right? So you cannot use the "he was a witness" excuse to defend the police. You must agree, surely, that what we have here is a model for the treatment of suspects in Perugia. At least debate honestly and confirm that you understand that Lumumba was denied his rights as a suspect, by the police, not by anyone else and certainly not by Ms Knox.

You and your acolytes are so keen to promote the innocence of Lumumba and how he was wronged. The debate about the calunia charge is one thing; Lumumba's treatment by the police is not debateable. They did this to him - nobody else. So, say so!

You forget it. Racial insults - if true - are inexcusable, physical harassment if true is inexcusable. For this, however, it's up to him to pursue his interest, an investigation on those allegations would require a formal complaint.

But denial of lawyer and isolation is completely within the provisions of the code. There is no trampling of his rights as a suspect. Here we are talking about something that is legal and not censured by the ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

Well said, Planigale. Spoken like a scientist. To a lawyer, as to any reasonable layman also, the fact she tested with TMB, got a negative result and suppressed the fact is, to put it at its lowest, telling as is the inexplicable failure to conduct any confirmatory testing at all.

{Highlighting added to quote.|

A quibble: No confirmatory testing was reported.

The TMB testing was conducted but:
1) the information that TMB testing was conducted, and
2) the results of the TMB testing
were withheld from the defense for almost the entire length of the first-level trial (IIRC).

ETA: And the results of the TMB testing were exculpatory,

Thus, by reporting positive luminol results, suggesting but not conclusively demonstrating the presence of blood, but withholding the negative TMB results, which demonstrated the absence of blood and are therefore exculpatory, the forensic police and prosecution misrepresented the evidence for nearly the entire length of the first-level trial. The effect of the misrepresentation was to give the false appearance of possible guilt.

The failure to conduct, or if they were conducted, to report, blood-specific confirmatory testing indicates that the forensic police and prosecutor were determined to maintain ambiguity about the luminol-positive stains and are a sign of bad faith on their part.

 

[RWVBWL]

Another Italian, Frank Sfarzo, wrote this of Lumumba back on Feb. 24, 2008:
On the side of the investigation, a local newspaper yesterday reported that some compromising material was allegedly found in Patrick's pub when it was searched. Still something to be explained for our rich man, it would seem...

<snip>
I am not a biologist but I can read.

Greetings Machiavelli,
Dude, you like to read? Me too!

By any chance did you read the article in the local newspaper that Frank Sfarzo wrote about?

It apparently came out on Feb. 23, 2008,
maybe it was in The Giornale dell'Umbria?
Wasn't this the same newspaper that found Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle?

Please, if you get a chance,
can you find out what compromising material was allegedly found in Patrick's pub when it was searched?
Thanks,
RW

 

[Kauffer]

You forget it. Racial insults - if true - are inexcusable, physical harassment if true is inexcusable. For this, however, it's up to him to pursue his interest, an investigation on those allegations would require a formal complaint.

But denial of lawyer and isolation is completely within the provisions of the code. There is no trampling of his rights as a suspect. Here we are talking about something that is legal and not censured by the ECHR.

Well now. I'd like to hear more about this, because it's new. We have a suspect in a murder investigation and the "denial of lawyer and isolation is completely within the provisions of the code", according to you. With reference to the code, show us how Lumumba's treatment by the police "is legal".

 

[Numbers]

You forget it. Racial insults - if true - are inexcusable, physical harassment if true is inexcusable. For this, however, it's up to him to pursue his interest, an investigation on those allegations would require a formal complaint.

But denial of lawyer and isolation is completely within the provisions of the code. There is no trampling of his rights as a suspect. Here we are talking about something that is legal and not censured by the ECHR.

{Highlighting, underlining, and bold added to quote.}

Mach,
The statement highlighted and bolded in your quote is absolutely incorrect with respect to the underlined text. Failure to provide a lawyer to a suspect who was arrested and interrogated is absolutely against ECHR case-law; it was a violation by the police of Mr. Patrick Lumumba's Convention human rights, Article 6.3c. Since Mr. Lumumba was never brought to trial, and charges were dismissed (IIUC) there was no violation of Article 6.1.

The abuse, verbal and physical, that Mr. Lumumba experienced from the police were a violation of Article 3. I did see in a newspaper account that he had returned the money he had been offered by the Italian Republic to compensate for his false arrest, and was intending to file an application with the ECHR, but I could not find a case under his name in the HUDOC database.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thus, by reporting positive luminol results, suggesting but not conclusively demonstrating the presence of blood, but withholding the negative TMB results, which demonstrated the absence of blood and are therefore exculpatory, the forensic police and prosecution misrepresented the evidence for nearly the entire length of the first-level trial. The effect of the misrepresentation was to give the false appearance of possible guilt.

The failure to conduct, or if they were conducted, to report, blood-specific confirmatory testing indicates that the forensic police and prosecutor were determined to maintain ambiguity about the luminol-positive stains and are a sign of bad faith on their part.

Quite. These things have both a scientific significance and an additional forensic significance too and this is true of large parts of the prosecution case.

When I learned of the Hellman acquittal I became seriously interested in this case because I had lazily assumed they were guilty just from a casual and occasional reading of press reports. The first question I asked (at IIP) was about the bleach receipts that proved Amanda was up and about at the crack of dawn the morning after the murder buying bleach. 'Get out of that', I thought. Well, they did. There were no bleach receipts. That not only removed that fact from the case but, to me, it went much further into the forensic arena and said something about the integrity of the prosecution as a whole. When a witness lies we are entitled (and obliged) to view all his evidence askance, not merely to cross off that one part of it. So a lie about TMB is of much greater significance than the mere fact (not that 'mere' is the right word) of the negative result itself. The lie itself is an additional, separate factor aside from the test result.

 

[Kauffer]

{Highlighting, underlining, and bold added to quote.}

Mach,
The statement highlighted and bolded in your quote is absolutely incorrect with respect to the underlined text. Failure to provide a lawyer to a suspect who was arrested and interrogated is absolutely against ECHR case-law; it was a violation by the police of Mr. Patrick Lumumba's Convention human rights, Article 6.3c. Since Mr. Lumumba was never brought to trial, and charges were dismissed (IIUC) there was no violation of Article 6.1.

The abuse, verbal and physical, that Mr. Lumumba experienced from the police were a violation of Article 3. I did see in a newspaper account that he had returned the money he had been offered by the Italian Republic to compensate for his false arrest, and was intending to file an application with the ECHR, but I could not find a case under his name in the HUDOC database.

That's interesting. Perhaps there is such a case. If it's not been admitted or rejected it wouldn't appear in the database, right?

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy busted with drugs?

Hiya Machiavelli,
I'm lookin' for something before I head to the beach in a few minutes.
As I was doing so, I came across an old article that our bro Malkmus posted from a few years back in Oct of 2011. It seems from translating this story in la Repubblica.it, that Rudy Guede was busted a coupla days after the Milan Nursery School incident, with drugs on him. This was just days before Meredith was raped and murdered, right?

Here's the quote:

The squad re-read the file of Rudy. Only five days before the discovery of Meredith's body was caught in a nursery in Milan with a knife in the kitchen of the school and took his white laptop. "I was at the station when a South American offered me a bed for 50 euros - had told the police in Milan - I did come here." Had denounced him and let him go and then stop it again two days later with a group of drug dealers and some Africans' drug in his pocket. From the Milan Furniture are now know that long ago had noticed in the most fashionable nightclubs

Machiavelli,
Can you take a few minutes of your time today, read the article, translate
and share with us English speakers the true story?
Was Rudy Guede busted with drugs on him?


Here's the original archived link:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...meredith-preso-il-quarto-uomo-sono-stato.html

See ya,
RW

 

[Kauffer]

Thus, by reporting positive luminol results, suggesting but not conclusively demonstrating the presence of blood, but withholding the negative TMB results, which demonstrated the absence of blood and are therefore exculpatory, the forensic police and prosecution misrepresented the evidence for nearly the entire length of the first-level trial. The effect of the misrepresentation was to give the false appearance of possible guilt.

The failure to conduct, or if they were conducted, to report, blood-specific confirmatory testing indicates that the forensic police and prosecutor were determined to maintain ambiguity about the luminol-positive stains and are a sign of bad faith on their part.

I think what you are referring to is the "data dump" which not only revealed the TMB testing but permitted Diocletus and others to reach further far reaching conclusions about the scientific evidence in the case - proof of contamination, the hiding of the results of the initial testing of the knife and the clasp, together with revelations about the downstairs apartment, amongst other things.

 

[Numbers]

That's interesting. Perhaps there is such a case. If it's not been admitted or rejected it wouldn't appear in the database, right?

Yes, it possibly is sitting in the 10,000 or so applications against Italy waiting for further evaluation. Of course, it would have been sitting there a long time.

One question would be, did Patrick Lumumba exhaust all the domestic remedies relating to the violation of his rights? If he filed an application, and the ECHR finds he did not exhaust them, his application would ultimately be decided inadmissible.

 

[Kauffer]

Yes, it possibly is sitting in the 10,000 or so applications against Italy waiting for further evaluation. Of course, it would have been sitting there a long time.

One question would be, did Patrick Lumumba exhaust all the domestic remedies relating to the violation of his rights? If he filed an application, and the ECHR finds he did not exhaust them, his application would ultimately be decided inadmissible.

Perhaps the ECHR would be minded not to admit it, if indeed it ever existed, since he is no longer in jeopardy and was awarded compensation against Italy -8 grand, wasnt it? One wonders whether the ECHR will eventually decide that these denial of counsel claims in Italy amount to a "repetitive" problem.