Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mr Fied]

This link can explain it better than me:


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

I won't hesitate. Were any footprints proven to be from Amanda or Raff, proven to have been made in blood?

 

[Grinder]

Probably because finding blood was not the standard of proof required to show the pair were present at the crime scene and to secure conviction. Finding the footprints being enough.

Only finding the prints in blood would put them there during the murder time.

It would have been more convincing if the prints actually matched the foot of AK.

Do you have copies of the reference prints they took from Filomena and Laura? How about previous tenants? Do you have any matching info at all?

 

[carbonjam72]

Very un-mensa, I must say...or is it!!!!

You can only detect bleach under luminol within eight hours. Source:


Abstract
The forensic luminol test has long been valued for its ability to detect trace amounts of blood that are invisible to the naked eye. This is the first quantitative study to determine the effect on the luminol test when an attempt is made to clean bloodstained tiles with a known interfering catalyst (bleach). Tiles covered with either wet or dry blood were tested, and either water or sodium hypochlorite solution (bleach) was used to clean the tiles. As expected, the chemiluminescence intensity produced when luminol was applied generally decreased with the number of times that a tile was cleaned with water, until the chemiluminescence was neither visible nor detectable. However, when the tiles were cleaned with bleach there was an initial drop in chemiluminescence intensity, followed by a rise to a consistently high value, visibly indistinguishable from that of blood. Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h.(c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966054

Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h.
I am looking for a logical explanation as to how it is concluded, "police found no evidence of a clean-up", given the test needs to be done within eight hours of assumed clean up, and given, Mez' body was not even found for apx fourteen hours.

I want to understand how police determined "there was no clean up", when AFAIAA police were satisfied there was.

Vixen, it appears to me that you have misread the source you provided.

I read the source you provided as saying essentially, that once the bleach dries, usually with an 8 hour time limit at the outside, the luminol reaction to bleach is "visually indistinguishable from that of blood".

So therefore, luminol testing of a crime scene 14 hours after a murder was committed and blood deposited, would only be conceivably affected by drying bleach if the hypothetical bleach clean-up had occurred within 8 hours of the application of luminol.

In addition, the fact that footprints were revealed in luminol, as opposed to swirls indicating a coating of bleach applied in a wiping motion, establishes that no bleach clean-up occurred at the cottage or at Raf's apartment.

The fact the the luminol spots were tested for blood by TMB, and came up negative, further establishes that neither were any latent footprints revealed by luminol made with blood.

And the fact that Stefanoni concealed the results that she had tested the luminol hits at the cottage for blood with TMB and came up negative, show Stefanoni committed perjury on the witness stand to falsely support a prosecution case.

This example shows a remarkable misreading of the source you have cited, and causes me to question your readings on other sources.

 

[Vixen]

This is a picture from your favorite source site

[qimg]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqUCoS9KDkIQGdMa6UGEAjvZD_sPcw2EW36nX9OiAnLi39oCuswQ[/qimg]

This a picture of the product you provided the ingredients for

[qimg]http://img.tesco.com/Groceries/pi/603/8001480020603/IDShot_225x225.jpg[/qimg]

Yours is for Ace Gentle Stain Remover.

Are you saying they didn't find bleach?

This is a link to info of the product found under the sink. http://www.pg.com/en_balkans/brands/household_care/ace.shtml

however this page isn't for Italy but it is for Albania - do you think maybe Koko bought it?

This bleach is for whiteness and hygiene unlike the one you fobbed off on us which can be used on colored material.

From here:

ACE BLEACH CLASSIC can be used on colored fabrics? ACE BLEACH TRADITIONAL, like the other conventional bleaches, was made ​​for use on garments white and can not be used on colored garments since the color can be damaged (eg. Discoloration) due to a chemical reaction between the hypochlorite sodium and the dye in the fabric.

Sodium hypochlorite is a chemical compound with the formula NaClO. It is composed of a sodium cation (Na+
) and a hypochlorite anion (ClO−
); it may also be viewed as the sodium salt of hypochlorous acid. When dissolved in water it is commonly known as bleach, or liquid bleach.

From your forensic site:

Understanding Bleach And Evidence
To understand how it all works, you have to consider that there are two kinds of bleach that are found in the majority of cleaning products within your home. There are bleaches that are primarily chlorine and there is also oxygen bleach.
Chlorine bleaches can remove a Bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.

With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, haemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected. As expected, this presents a unique challenge for forensic scientists. Not only that, but it can significantly compromise an investigation and may mean that Evidence is not properly investigated and used in a trial.

You'll note, both have the same manufacturer, Fater, who appear to be Italian.

OK, fair enough, Raff's ACE bleach is the sodium hypochlorite version and not the oxygen based type.

This means, if used to bleach blood, whilst the red colour might disappear, the iron element of the haematic substance is still there, as it is not oxidated, as it would be with an oxygen based bleach.

So, please explain the one sided shoeprints and the half-footprint on the bathmat, if there was "no clean up".

Hopalong Cassidy was there, perhaps?

 

[Numbers]

Probably because finding blood was not the standard of proof required to show the pair were present at the crime scene and to secure conviction. Finding the footprints being enough.

You apparently claim that the footprints were made in Meredith's blood, and that they were AK's and/or Raffaele's, and that therefore they are an indication of guilt. Confronted with Stefanoni's final admission that the second test with TMB shows that they are indeed not blood, you now state "Finding the footprints being enough." But if the footprints are not blood, and in fact did not show any of Meredith's DNA when tested, they have no connection with the murder. They were not even established as being Amanda's, since there was no comparison with the feet of other flat residents, past or contemporaneous, and the shapes of the alleged footprints were not at all clear. Thus, you statement lacks all logic. The standard of proof for conviction in Italian trials is by law (CPP Art. 533) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, it appears to me that you have misread the source you provided.

I read the source you provided as saying essentially, that once the bleach dries, usually with an 8 hour time limit at the outside, the luminol reaction to bleach is "visually indistinguishable from that of blood".

So therefore, luminol testing of a crime scene 14 hours after a murder was committed and blood deposited, would only be conceivably affected by drying bleach if the hypothetical bleach clean-up had occurred within 8 hours of the application of luminol.

In addition, the fact that footprints were revealed in luminol, as opposed to swirls indicating a coating of bleach applied in a wiping motion, establishes that no bleach clean-up occurred at the cottage or at Raf's apartment.

The fact the the luminol spots were tested for blood by TMB, and came up negative, further establishes that neither were any latent footprints revealed by luminol made with blood.

And the fact that Stefanoni concealed the results that she had tested the luminol hits at the cottage for blood with TMB and came up negative, show Stefanoni committed perjury on the witness stand to falsely support a prosecution case.

This example shows a remarkable misreading of the source you have cited, and causes me to question your readings on other sources.

No, the original statement by Dougm was that police found no evidence of a clean up.

I pointed out, unless they test within eight hours they could not definitively say one way or the other.

 

[carbonjam72]

Probably because finding blood was not the standard of proof required to show the pair were present at the crime scene and to secure conviction. Finding the footprints being enough.

Well this is another logical fallacy. The question isn't whether people who lived in the cottage were present at the crime scene, but whether they were present at the time the crime occurred.

But the findings of guilt in the Italian courts and in certain less illuminated back alleys of the internet were indeed based on the logical fallacy you repeat above.

The acquittals in the Italian courts by Hellman, and the latest and final ISC verdict of actual innocence, are based on the correct and logical standard, and should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the case.

 

[Vixen]

You apparently claim that the footprints were made in Meredith's blood, and that they were AK's and/or Raffaele's, and that therefore they are an indication of guilt. Confronted with Stefanoni's final admission that the second test with TMB shows that they are indeed not blood, you now state "Finding the footprints being enough." But if the footprints are not blood, and in fact did not show any of Meredith's DNA when tested, they have no connection with the murder. They were not even established as being Amanda's, since there was no comparison with the feet of other flat residents, past or contemporaneous, and the shapes of the alleged footprints were not at all clear. Thus, you statement lacks all logic. The standard of proof for conviction in Italian trials is by law (CPP Art. 533) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The DNA connections to Raff and Amanda are explained here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

So you admit they are Raff and Amanda's footprints?

 

[Vixen]

Well this is another logical fallacy. The question isn't whether people who lived in the cottage were present at the crime scene, but whether they were present at the time the crime occurred.

But the findings of guilt in the Italian courts and in certain less illuminated back alleys of the internet were indeed based on the logical fallacy you repeat above.

The acquittals in the Italian courts by Hellman, and the latest and final ISC verdict of actual innocence, are based on the correct and logical standard, and should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the case.

Does this mean the boycott of Italy and all things Italian is now lifted?

 

[Dougm]

No, the original statement by Dougm was that police found no evidence of a clean up.

I pointed out, unless they test within eight hours they could not definitively say one way or the other.

You do realize that if the police can't find evidence that something happened, they shouldn't be trying someone and claiming that thing happened, right?

 

[carbonjam72]

No, the original statement by Dougm was that police found no evidence of a clean up.

I pointed out, unless they test within eight hours they could not definitively say one way or the other.

Yes, and your statement here again is false.

The police found evidence that there was no clean-up, and after an initial eight hours of time for any application bleach to dry, the test would appear "visually indistinguishable from that of blood", and show the pattern of application in swirls AND NOT footprints.

Since footprints were revealed in luminol, it proves there was no clean-up. SInce the footprints were tested for blood and were negative, the footprints were not made in blood, and are therefore most likely not related to the crime.
Again, please re-read the original source you yourself provided, and review the mistaken interpretation you have repeatedly attempted to portray as accurate.

 

[Grinder]

This link can explain it better than me:


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Footprints Found To Match Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Rinaldi's Photo Appendix, which accompanied their presentation, can be found here. Beginning on page 21 it provides measurements for each of the Luminol traces and compares them against the three suspects. Rinaldi and Bohemia speak of compatibility based on size and shape rather than matches on account of the Luminol traces lacking the ridges, wrinkles, and other distinguishing characteristics that are seen in the ink reference prints.
Rinaldi's Testimony
Boemia's Testimony
Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia were given the task of doing the technical investigation of the footprints that the luminol revealed.[5] Of these three had sufficient details to be used for the purpose of identification. Two of the footprints made in blood were identified as being compatible with Amanda Knox and the third was identified as being compatible with Raffaele Sollecito.[6] It was further possible to use the same measurements to exclude the possibility that Rudy Guede made the bloody footprints.[7]

See any problems with using these as evidence? Why would these people that write this not be honest about the fact that it wasn't established that the substance was blood and certainly not Meredith's blood or for that matter when the prints were left. Given that the TMB test came up negative how can they say "footprints made in blood"?

 

[carbonjam72]

No, the footsteps would only be smeared if still wet or damp. Blood dries notoriously quickly, due to its clotting agents. A dried footstep in blood might be bleached over (assuming it's sodium hypochlorite*) and be invisible to the naked eye, but luminol will pick up the ferric elements within the haemoglobin causing it to glow and this chemoluminescence can be photographed.

That is the whole point of luminol. If you could see the blood, you'd hardly call in the forensic guys to investigate. Rust will react, being an iron based substance. So will copper, as most copper is made of alloys.

Seriously, unless you are postulating Raff and Amanda had been wading in copper alloys, rusty water or some fruit juices, their bloody footprints were caught bang to rights.

No amount of "no that parrot is not dead" sophistry is going to change the facts found by forensic police and a court of law. *ETA However we know ACE bleach is an oxygen based bleach, which would obliterate the blood all together. This would explain the unexpected one-sided set of footprints, as though someone had hopped along on one foot.
You can see the detectives' reasoning that perhaps Raff, master cleaner, had researched this issue on the internet.

The first statement again displays the error you continue to make that is relevant to this point.

A bleach clean-up would subsume the footprint in a swirl pattern of bleach when exposed to luminol.

The process of bleach drying, would not magically restore footprints that the bleach had been applied to, specifically to clean away.

But my favorite bit of gibberish from your post, is first using a reference to Monty Python's dead parrot sketch, you then proceed to directly to indicate that the utility of bleach in cleaning up blood infers that a person so using it, would hop around on one foot to leave traces that must be cleaned.

Or, if I understand you correctly: Kerfluzio bogmanish echmanisherplat gavol crackindope.

 

[carbonjam72]

Does this mean the boycott of Italy and all things Italian is now lifted?

Not until Mignini and his accomplices go to jail for their lies in this case, imo.

 

[Numbers]

It says the interfering effect becomes negligible. It doesn't say that it's use can't be detected. As has been pointed out cleaned blood would show swirls or lines and wouldn't be effective in the grout areas.

If you were correct why do you think they didn't clean the whole floor.

Attempted cleaning of bloodstains and its effect on the forensic luminol test
Jonathan I. Creamer,1,2 Terence I. Quickenden,1* Leah B. Crichton,1 Patrick Robertson1 and Rasha A. Ruhayel1

Source: Luminescence (In press)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/bio.865

There is a misstatement by Vixen of the facts presented in this article. The luminol chemiluminescence that decreases after 8 hours of drying is that of sodium hypochlorite solution - bleach - alone, not when mixed with blood as part of a cleanup.

A cleanup of blood leaves swirl patterns of residual hemoglobin. These cannot be detected unaided visually; one would need luminol or a similar detection agent to detect the low levels of residual hemoglobin. No such swirl patterns were detected at the Kercher murder crime scene.

 

[Numbers]

You apparently claim that the footprints were made in Meredith's blood, and that they were AK's and/or Raffaele's, and that therefore they are an indication of guilt. Confronted with Stefanoni's final admission that the second test with TMB shows that they are indeed not blood, you now state "Finding the footprints being enough." But if the footprints are not blood, and in fact did not show any of Meredith's DNA when tested, they have no connection with the murder. They were not even established as being Amanda's, since there was no comparison with the feet of other flat residents, past or contemporaneous, and the shapes of the alleged footprints were not at all clear. Thus, you statement lacks all logic. The standard of proof for conviction in Italian trials is by law (CPP Art. 533) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

....
So you admit they are Raff and Amanda's footprints?

I added some emphasis to my statement so that you can understand my point. Your statement is a misstatement of my post.

The alleged luminol footprints were never shown to be from Amanda or Raffaele, or from anyone else. The alleged luminol footprints alleged by the prosecution to be from Amanda were according to Stefanoni's final testimony, after she corrected her misstatements, not to be made in blood.

Only shoeprints in Meredith's blood, consistent with Guede's shoe soles, were positively identified.

 

[analemma]

Only shoeprints in Meredith's blood, consistent with Guede's shoe soles, were positively identified.

Poor, Poor Rudy

 

[Ken Dine]

“It appears Judge Massei … made an error. He got mixed up and switched the locations of the two text messages around.. the second Judge, Nencini, repeated the same error as Massei.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/deceit-shocking-expos-of-amanda-knox-murder-case

Apparently, 'Guilter' author Nick van der Leek feels that the two judges mixed cell-towers around since one call was too close in time to when witness Popovic saw Amanda at Raffaele's apartment around 8:40 pm.

Even if the judges had goofed by switching around cell-towers, how would that explain away their problem that one of those calls had used the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower that night, and it is one call or the other using that tower which the judges had based their conclusion that Amanda had lied about remaining with Raffaele all night on the night of Nov 1st.

AGAIN, the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower did service Raffaele's apartment, so the prosecution and both judges were wrong about using that tower to conclude Amanda had lied about her whereabouts that evening!

Even if Amanda had run to the store for something and forgot she had done so, and while at the store she received the message from Lumumba using a tower that didn't service Raffaele's apartment, so what? Would you seriously consider that to be damning evidence against her?

Can you remember everything you did 3 or 4 days ago?

Of course, this is just a mental exercise (wasted on you) since the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower did IN FACT service Raffaele's apartment.

As for the luminol:

What about the substance that's glowing on the CSI technician's shoes and yellow ruler:

Care to opine about what's on that CSI technician's shoes and yellow ruler that's causing them to light up like a Xmas tree?

Maybe, he stabbed his wife with the yellow ruler before leaving for work?

The Clean-up:

Seriously, if you had any integrity you'd back off of most of your silly 'Guilter" mountain of evidence as each item is explained to you how meaningless it is.

For example, the Luminol may indeed have been reacting to something other than blood – e.g., as the other poster has already mentioned, the cottage was old and its water may indeed have had rusty tap water.

Other than in the bathroom or kitchen sink area, straight bleach isn't normally used for cleaning, especially to clean floors, but there can be some bleach in cleaning products, so arguing about bleach drying times is meaningless.

In any event, the cottage clearly had been cleaned, but it had been cleaned BEFORE the murder since both older Italian roomies had been cracking the whip on both younger English-speaking gals, whom they claimed were both slobs.

Even Nencini realized Meredith's bedroom would have been impossible to clean. The hallway hadn't been cleaned since they found Guede's (un-smudged) bloody shoe prints in the hallway.

The small bathroom obviously hadn't been cleaned since it would have taken only 30 minutes to thoroughly clean a bathroom.

If Amanda & Raffaele had cleaned up after the murder, then why didn't they dispose of the bloody blue bathmat, which would have been easy to do?

Instead, Amanda led the Postal Police officer directly to the bloody blue bathmat -- why would a guilty Amanda have done that?

Seriously, do you have any common sense left?

 

[Bill Williams]

Probably because finding blood was not the standard of proof required to show the pair were present at the crime scene and to secure conviction. Finding the footprints being enough.

Only finding the prints in blood would put them there during the murder time.

It would have been more convincing if the prints actually matched the foot of AK.

Do you have copies of the reference prints they took from Filomena and Laura? How about previous tenants? Do you have any matching info at all?

In a suspect-centric investigation, one does not do reference prints. Strangely, in the now annuled Massei-motivations-report, Judge Massei does have a brief discussion of the perils of suspect-centric investigations, in the case he is citing he is referencing the complaints made against Patrizia Stefanoni the Scientific Police assigned to lead this whole mess.

After a very decent description of what the concept is and its perils, Judge Massei them, incredibly, goes on to accept everything Stefanoni did, quite contrary to his own discussion. His main reasoning amounts to, "I'm sure she would not conduct such an investigation because she is a professional, and to accuse her of such would be tantamount to accusing her of misconduct."

He then ends the discussion taking her side and refusing to appoint an independent DNA-analyst like what Hellmann eventually did in appointing Vecchiotti and Conti.

It was the same in the now annulled Nencini motivations report when he discusses the nature of the bra-clasp evidence, 165B. With a wave of the hand he dismisses the other male-contributors to 165B by saying, "the point is that Raffaele's DNA is found there."

This is, if nothing else, the epitome of the perils of suspect-centric points of view. The presence of other male contributors to 165B is highly suggestive of contamination - probably from Stefanoni's own glove (where she can be seen at collection handling the clasp with an obviously dirty glove)......

..... yet being blinded by his suspect-centrism, Nencini finds that it is only proof Raffaele was there during the murder, and simply ignores the reality of contamination.

Vixen is following in some very important footsteps. Mignini, Comodi, Massei, Crini and Judge Nencini being some.

 

[Dan O.]

You'll note, both have the same manufacturer, Fater, who appear to be Italian.

OK, fair enough, Raff's ACE bleach is the sodium hypochlorite version and not the oxygen based type.

This means, if used to bleach blood, whilst the red colour might disappear, the iron element of the haematic substance is still there, as it is not oxidated, as it would be with an oxygen based bleach.

So, please explain the one sided shoeprints and the half-footprint on the bathmat, if there was "no clean up".

Hopalong Cassidy was there, perhaps?

Did you miss my explanation when you brought up the subject the first time? Can I expect any difference this time?

How about since you are the one trying to present a claim, you provide a timeline for when each of the prints were made and when your suposed cleanup occured. This should be quite illuminating for you if you actually try to undertake this task since two of the prints are overlapped.