Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

A study of common interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood

Quickenden and Creamer
Department of Chemistry, University of Western Australia
Luminescence 2001;16:295–298

ABSTRACT: A wide range of domestic and industrial substances that might be mistaken for haemoglobin in the forensic luminol test
for blood were examined. The substances studied were in the categories of vegetable or fruit pulps and juices; domestic and
commercial oils; cleaning agents; an insecticide; and various glues, paints and varnishes. A significant number of substances in each
category gave luminescence intensities that were comparable with the intensities of undiluted haemoglobin, when sprayed with the
standard forensic solution containing aqueous alkaline luminol and sodium perborate. In these cases the substance could be easily
mistaken for blood when the luminol test is used, but in the remaining cases the luminescence intensity was so weak that it is unlikely
that a false-positive test would be obtained. In a few cases the brightly emitting substance could be distinguished from blood by a
small but detectable shift of the peak emission wavelength. The results indicated that particular care should be taken to avoid
interferences when a crime scene is contaminated with parsnip, turnip or horseradish, and when surfaces coated with enamel paint are
involved. To a lesser extent, some care should be taken when surfaces covered with terracotta or ceramic tiles, polyurethane varnishes
or jute and sisal matting are involved. Copyright
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
____

Those disagreeing with the work of the above or the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bc...es/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx) should let those professors or law-enforcement agencies know their views.

The above is only applicable if a spectrometer is used (as in this study) to analyse the light output from Luminol, Steffanoni did no such thing.

 

[Vixen]

So how many lies here?
"planigale (for it is he/she) she was headed for her room to get a towel."
Please show where I have said Knox was headed for her room to get a towel; or admit yet again you have lied about what someone posted. Primary source should be easy to find!

You do understand a dactyloligist is a fingerprint technician, not a footprint specialist (normally a forensic anthropologist or forensic podiatrist)? You do know Robbins is discredited? You duo understand 'compatible' means that they were not able to identify Knox as the source of the print?

You do know this is untrue "the footprint highlighted by luminol, which is several hundred thousand times more sensitive to blood than TMB"? Please reference a source saying Luminol is several hundred thousand times more sensitive or admit this is a lie. (Just to give you a helping hand the limit of sensitivity of Luminol is a 1:1,000,000 dilution so you are claiming that the limit of sensitivity of TMB is less than a 1:10 dilution.).

I assume this"Mignini's closing submissions" references the Manga. The specific question you need to answer is the source of the claim that the murder was staged to emulate the picture in the Manga 'Blood:the first vampire'. And, where in the Manga is it stated that this occurred on halloween. This is a claim you made and now you are being asked to back it up or backdown and admit you just made it up (i.e. another lie).

Oh please. If a fingerprint is matched at 18 places or so, then it is described as 'compatible' with the person it is being compared against.

Nobody argues about fingerprint ID.

The footprints in the hallway and on the bathmat utilise exactly the same science of matching elements of the incriminating prints with a suspect.

Professor Rinaldi and senior forensic police expert Boemia declared with the confidence of the scientists that they are that the footprints - soaked in Mez' blood, as identified by luminol - were compatible (= as identified with the precison and accuracy of fingerprinting profiles) with Amanda, Raff and Rudy. NOTA BENE As a bloody murder had occurred in that sealed off vincinity we can infer it is blood and not pineapple juice, horseradish, turnip or bwahahahahahahaha rusty water LOL.

In any case, why would the kids have soaked their feet in rusty water as Mez lay dead in her room?

Cue, Planigale: 'It's not dead, it's, it's, er, pining for the fjords of Norway...'

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh please. If a fingerprint is matched at 18 places or so, then it is described as 'compatible' with the person it is being compared against.

Nobody argues about fingerprint ID.

The footprints in the hallway and on the bathmat utilise exactly the same science of matching elements of the incriminating prints with a suspect.

Professor Rinaldi and senior forensic police expert Boemia declared with the confidence of the scientists that they are that the footprints - soaked in Mez' blood, as identified by luminol - were compatible (= as identified with the precison and accuracy of fingerprinting profiles) with Amanda, Raff and Rudy. NOTA BENE As a bloody murder had occurred in that sealed off vincinity we can infer it is blood and not pineapple juice, horseradish, turnip or bwahahahahahahaha rusty water LOL.

In any case, why would the kids have soaked their feet in rusty water as Mez lay dead in her room?

Cue, Planigale: 'It's not dead, it's, it's, er, pining for the fjords of Norway...'

The true value of this post is as a primer on the concept of "begging the question".

I'd never thought I would say this, but you desperately need to review the Massei report from 2010 on all this.

You also need to quit your despicable practice of referring to Kercher with that familiar term. The only redeeming virtue of the practice coming from you is that it says something about your make up.

 

[Vixen]

A study of common interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood

Quickenden and Creamer
Department of Chemistry, University of Western Australia
Luminescence 2001;16:295–298

ABSTRACT: A wide range of domestic and industrial substances that might be mistaken for haemoglobin in the forensic luminol test
for blood were examined. The substances studied were in the categories of vegetable or fruit pulps and juices; domestic and
commercial oils; cleaning agents; an insecticide; and various glues, paints and varnishes. A significant number of substances in each
category gave luminescence intensities that were comparable with the intensities of undiluted haemoglobin, when sprayed with the
standard forensic solution containing aqueous alkaline luminol and sodium perborate. In these cases the substance could be easily
mistaken for blood when the luminol test is used, but in the remaining cases the luminescence intensity was so weak that it is unlikely
that a false-positive test would be obtained. In a few cases the brightly emitting substance could be distinguished from blood by a
small but detectable shift of the peak emission wavelength. The results indicated that particular care should be taken to avoid
interferences when a crime scene is contaminated with parsnip, turnip or horseradish, and when surfaces coated with enamel paint are
involved. To a lesser extent, some care should be taken when surfaces covered with terracotta or ceramic tiles, polyurethane varnishes
or jute and sisal matting are involved. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
____

Those disagreeing with the work of the above or the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bc...es/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx) should let those professors or law-enforcement agencies know their views.

How very interesting. The bloody footprint in the bathroom was made with Mez' blood, likely diluted with water. Scientific fact.

Using the same art of precise mathematical measurement, it was revealed the footprint was 'highly compatible' with Raff (which is all a scientist can ever say as there is always a probability, no matter how vanishingly remote, that it is also compatible with AN Other; footprints being as unique as fingerprints, so an accurate identification).

The correlation of the bloody footprint to the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito is extremely high in twelve separate individual measurements. In addition, there is a manifest lack of correlation to the right foot of Rudy Guede. Not only are some of the individual measurements of Rudy’s imprint as much as 30% too small, but the relative proportions of length and breadth measurements are entirely wrong as well, both undershooting and overshooting by a large margin (70% to 150%).
In Judge Massei's court, Professor Vinci, Sollecito’s expert witness attempted to argue that the footprint was actually that of Guede, but this was rejected by the judges on the basis of the measurements shown above.[4] In addition, the court discounted the idea that Guede had ever been in his bare feet that evening. The visible shoe prints clearly showed that he had walked directly from Meredith’s room, down the hallway, and out of the door.[5]
The severity of the impact on the defense is such that there was even a distorted photoshopped version circulated by online supporters of Raffaele and Amanda until they were caught out early on in coverage.[6] But it is hopeless, because these are objective measurements, presented in court and recorded, in detail, in the judges' report.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

Raff was there. At the murder scene. Wake up, Peeps!

 

[Numbers]

Luminescence. 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):411-3.

Attempted cleaning of bloodstains and its effect on the forensic luminol test.
Creamer JI1, Quickenden TI, Crichton LB, Robertson P, Ruhayel RA.
Author information
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.

____

A study of common interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood

Quickenden and Creamer
Department of Chemistry, University of Western Australia
Luminescence 2001;16:295–298

Introduction
The forensic luminol test for blood has been known for
over 60 years, since its discovery by Walter Sprecht (1) in
1937. The test involves spraying suspected blood
samples with a standard mixture of luminol (5-amino-
2,3-dihydro-1,4-phthalazinedione) dissolved in alkaline,
aqueous solution containing either dilute hydrogen
peroxide or sodium perborate (2). Traces of human
blood as small as 1 ng can be detected (3) by the pale
blue chemiluminescence emitted when they come into
contact with the forensic luminol mixture. Visual rather
than instrumental detection of the luminescence is
usually used and the test is regarded as presumptive
rather than definitive, due to the range of interfering
substances that can trigger the emission of the blue
chemiluminescence.
Much has been written about the fact that the luminol
test is not specific to blood. Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
(4, 5), plant peroxidases (4–6), and iron or copper
compounds (3–6) have all been reported as producing
visible chemiluminescence when exposed to the luminol
solution. However, these publications provide only a
qualitative study of these interferences.

 

[Planigale]

Oh please. If a fingerprint is matched at 18 places or so, then it is described as 'compatible' with the person it is being compared against.

Nobody argues about fingerprint ID.

The footprints in the hallway and on the bathmat utilise exactly the same science of matching elements of the incriminating prints with a suspect.

Professor Rinaldi and senior forensic police expert Boemia declared with the confidence of the scientists that they are that the footprints - soaked in Mez' blood, as identified by luminol - were compatible (= as identified with the precison and accuracy of fingerprinting profiles) with Amanda, Raff and Rudy. NOTA BENE As a bloody murder had occurred in that sealed off vincinity we can infer it is blood and not pineapple juice, horseradish, turnip or bwahahahahahahaha rusty water LOL.

In any case, why would the kids have soaked their feet in rusty water as Mez lay dead in her room?

Cue, Planigale: 'It's not dead, it's, it's, er, pining for the fjords of Norway...'

This just shows your ignorance. There are a lot of issues with fingerprint id.
One is the compatibility issue, dactylologists usually look for similarities but fail to document differences. The second is the binary match Yes or No. Since mathematicians have been involved with computational analysis of fingerprints it is clear a probabilistic answer is best. There are documented cases of identical prints in different people when analysed using conventional techniques. Let alone simple mistakes.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/scien...cience-and-fingerprints/content-section-1.2.2

Analysing fingerprints is completely different from analysing footprints. The equivalent is analysing toe prints.

This is a good summary of how to do footprint analysis. see how many errors the dactylologists made because they treated foot prints like fingerprints.
http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/bare-footprint-marks/

Just match what they should have done to what they did. Just remember how Boemia said he did not know the anatomy of the foot!

 

[Vixen]

This just shows your ignorance. There are a lot of issues with fingerprint id.
One is the compatibility issue, dactylologists usually look for similarities but fail to document differences. The second is the binary match Yes or No. Since mathematicians have been involved with computational analysis of fingerprints it is clear a probabilistic answer is best. There are documented cases of identical prints in different people when analysed using conventional techniques. Let alone simple mistakes.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/scien...cience-and-fingerprints/content-section-1.2.2

Analysing fingerprints is completely different from analysing footprints. The equivalent is analysing toe prints.

This is a good summary of how to do footprint analysis. see how many errors the dactylologists made because they treated foot prints like fingerprints.
http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/bare-footprint-marks/

Just match what they should have done to what they did. Just remember how Bohemia said he did not know the anatomy of the foot!

That is beside the point. The point being made is that fingerprint identification is considered legally valid.

Ditto footprint identification.

It is concluded that the print on the bathmat is definitely not Amanda's or Rudy's id est 'incompatible' and 'compatible (=legally identifies, and the trial judge ruled it is so) with Raff's.
In her email to the world 3 Nov 2007, Amanda sets out in great detail, their shower together, wherein he cleaned her ears and hair.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is beside the point. The point being made is that fingerprint identification is considered legally valid.

Ditto footprint identification.

It is concluded that the print on the bathmat is definitely not Amanda's or Rudy's id est 'incompatible' and 'compatible (=legally identifies, and the trial judge ruled it is so) with Raff's.
In her email to the world 3 Nov 2007, Amanda sets out in great detail, their shower together, wherein he cleaned her ears and hair.

One again, I wish you would a least read the 2010 Massei motivations report, which goes through this evidence fairly thoroughly.

For one thing - every-time you call it a foot-print, you betray that you do not know what you are talking about. The bathmat impression is at best a partial foot-track.

It is a foottrack on a permeable, soft receiving-material. If you do not understand how that changes things - then you really DO need to read the Massei report.

It's bizarre in the extreme that you would post all these posts and have not even gone through the most basic way of presenting this as (non-)evidence.

 

[Planigale]

How very interesting. The bloody footprint in the bathroom was made with Mez' blood, likely diluted with water. Scientific fact.

Using the same art of precise mathematical measurement, it was revealed the footprint was 'highly compatible' with Raff (which is all a scientist can ever say as there is always a probability, no matter how vanishingly remote, that it is also compatible with AN Other; footprints being as unique as fingerprints, so an accurate identification).

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

Raff was there. At the murder scene. Wake up, Peeps!

The matching of the bloody footprint on the bathmat is clearly corrupt. The prosecution experts ignored a clear difference. There is no documentation of how they measured the prints. they worked off photographs and didnot examine the mat. The identical measures between a standing print in ink on a non absorbent surface and a step print on an absorbent surface is impossible if they were made by the same foot. The only way to get the identical dimensions is by measuring to fit. The variation in footprint size between morning and evening, between set and stand, are greater than they measured. What happened here is they made the measurements fit Sollecito to fit him up. Most of the investigation is just incompetent but the bathmat print analysis is unconscionable.

 

[Vixen]

The above is only applicable if a spectrometer is used (as in this study) to analyse the light output from Luminol, Steffanoni did no such thing.

You just made that up.

On December 18, 2007 Deputy Commissioner Maurizio Arnone and video technician Claudio Ippolito went to the cottage to document with video the spraying of luminol on certain areas and photograph any traces of blood that the luminol might reveal.[1] The areas that were to be covered included the kitchen-living room, the bedrooms of Amanda Knox and Filomena Romanelli, and the large bathroom.[2] They reported seven footprints in the corridor between Meredith's bedroom where she was murdered and Amanda Knox's bedroom. No similar footprints were discovered anywhere else in the cottage. [3] The three footprints in Knox's room yielded Knox's genetic profile and one of the footprints in the hallway contained both Amanda and Meredith's DNA.[4]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

 

[Vixen]

The matching of the bloody footprint on the bathmat is clearly corrupt. The prosecution experts ignored a clear difference. There is no documentation of how they measured the prints. they worked off photographs and didnot examine the mat. The identical measures between a standing print in ink on a non absorbent surface and a step print on an absorbent surface is impossible if they were made by the same foot. The only way to get the identical dimensions is by measuring to fit. The variation in footprint size between morning and evening, between set and stand, are greater than they measured. What happened here is they made the measurements fit Sollecito to fit him up. Most of the investigation is just incompetent but the bathmat print analysis is unconscionable.

Fingerprint analysis is done by photographs.

Look at it, whichever which way you can: the footprint on the bathmat in Mez' blood is that of Raff's, as a fact found by the trial, which was fair, even-handed and heard evidence from all parties and expert witnesses.

Accept it.

A trial judge who makes a finding of fact = a legal fact, with the same legal authority as a birth certificate or marriage certificate.

Argue against it all you want. It is sure. A fact.

'Rage, rage...!' ~ Dylan Thomas

 

[Planigale]

You just made that up.



http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

I suspect you do not know what a spectrometer is. It is not a camera. Steffanoni only photographed the images. You cannot easily do spectrographic analysis off colour images (but not impossible), Steffanoni did not do spectrometry.

 

[Planigale]

Fingerprint analysis is done by photographs.

Look at it, whichever which way you can: the footprint on the bathmat in Mez' blood is that of Raff's, as a fact found by the trial, which was fair, even-handed and heard evidence from all parties and expert witnesses.

Accept it.

A trial judge who makes a finding of fact = a legal fact, with the same legal authority as a birth certificate or marriage certificate.

Argue against it all you want. It is sure.

'Rail, rail...!' ~ Dylan Thomas

Yes exactly. Fingerprint analysis is done using photographs this is because the dimension of the print is irrelevant. It is the shape and relationships that is important. In contrast the size of the foot print is essential in its analysis. You never see fingerprints documented in mm, it is whorls and loops. But the footprint is measured, so the measurements need to be done from the original or as is emphasised you need to have rectilinear imaging so dimensions can be accurately measured. This was not done.

Trials can be wrong. Especially when the prosecution experts are not experts so their opinions are worthless. Just open your mind read the expert literature see the errors made.

I don't ask you to believe me. Read the experts and see what they say.

 

[Vixen]

I suspect you do not know what a spectrometer is. It is not a camera. Steffanoni only photographed the images. You cannot easily do spectrographic analysis off colour images (but not impossible), Steffanoni did not do spectrometry.

Don't tell me. The spectrometer for the kids was corrupt, contaminated and wrong. The spectrometer for Rudy was standard, every day and accurate. What's the problem?

Ri-ight. <fx backs out of room slowly>

 

[Methos]

Oh please. If a fingerprint is matched at 18 places or so, then it is described as 'compatible' with the person it is being compared against.

Nobody argues about fingerprint ID.

The footprints in the hallway and on the bathmat utilise exactly the same science of matching elements of the incriminating prints with a suspect.

If you had read Dr Rinaldi's report you'd know that the lack of dermal papillae was one of the reasons for Dr Rinaldi to lable those prints as "Non utile per confronti positivi ma utile per confronti negativi" and "Non utile". All of them, so your fingerprint comparison goes down the drain, but we have already been there...

Professor Rinaldi and senior forensic police expert Boemia declared with the confidence of the scientists that they are that the footprints - soaked in Mez' blood, as identified by luminol - were compatible (= as identified with the precison and accuracy of fingerprinting profiles) with Amanda, Raff and Rudy.
[...]

It's "Professor" Rinaldi now? Wow! Well, the newly appointed Professor seems to disagree with the highlighted part (see above)...

 

[Vixen]

Yes exactly. Fingerprint analysis is done using photographs this is because the dimension of the print is irrelevant. It is the shape and relationships that is important. In contrast the size of the foot print is essential in its analysis. You never see fingerprints documented in mm, it is whorls and loops. But the footprint is measured, so the measurements need to be done from the original or as is emphasised you need to have rectilinear imaging so dimensions can be accurately measured. This was not done.

Trials can be wrong. Especially when the prosecution experts are not experts so their opinions are worthless. Just open your mind read the expert literature see the errors made.

I don't ask you to believe me. Read the experts and see what they say.

'The Forensic Police are not experts'. LOL. A friend of mine works in forensics and often gives evdience as an expert witness. She has a first class degree in chemistry, amongst other things. To call all police forensic experts incompetent, corrupt and unprofessional is insulting to the profession.

As if any of these people are the slightest bit interested in perverting justice, let alone all of them, according to your preposterous generalisation, dealing with hundreds, and even thousands, of forensic analyses every year.


Take a reality check.


Your claim the prints were not properly analysed is frankly untrue.


Have a closer look at the results again.

 

[Vixen]

If you had read Dr Rinaldi's report you'd know that the lack of dermal papillae was one of the reasons for Dr Rinaldi to lable those prints as "Non utile per confronti positivi ma utile per confronti negativi" and "Non utile". All of them, so your fingerprint comparison goes down the drain, but we have already been there...


It's "Professor" Rinaldi now? Wow! Well, the newly appointed Professor seems to disagree with the highlighted part (see above)...

Erratum: Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi, not professor.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes exactly. Fingerprint analysis is done using photographs this is because the dimension of the print is irrelevant. It is the shape and relationships that is important. In contrast the size of the foot print is essential in its analysis. You never see fingerprints documented in mm, it is whorls and loops. But the footprint is measured, so the measurements need to be done from the original or as is emphasised you need to have rectilinear imaging so dimensions can be accurately measured. This was not done.

Trials can be wrong. Especially when the prosecution experts are not experts so their opinions are worthless. Just open your mind read the expert literature see the errors made.

I don't ask you to believe me. Read the experts and see what they say.

Unfortunately, in my experience and observation, it is to all intents impossible to have a rational, honest, learned debate on scientific matters when the other side of the argument is poisoned by the potent combination of:

1) gross scientific ignorance and illiteracy;

2) a total inability to accept their failings of scientific knowledge and understanding;

3) a hubristic (but fundamentally incorrect) belief in the truth/correctness of their own knowledge and understanding;

4) an evangelical zeal in defending a specific position at any cost, causing an irrational and improper skewing in scientific interpretation;


Fortunately, proper scientists and followers of the scientific method can easily identify such shortcomings and dismiss such "arguments" accordingly. But I sincerely doubt that the authors of such flawed thinking will ever be able to be shown convincingly how and why they are so very wrong: after all, the same underlying scientific/critical thinking problems which manifest themselves in this flawed thinking are the very same problems that will prevent enlightenment and acknowledgement of the flaws themselves.

 

[LondonJohn]

'The Forensic Police are not experts'. LOL. A friend of mine works in forensics and often gives evdience as an expert witness. She has a first class degree in chemistry, amongst other things. To call all police forensic experts incompetent, corrupt and unprofessional is insulting to the profession.

As if any of these people are the slightest bit interested in perverting justice, let alone all of them, according to your preposterous generalisation, dealing with hundreds, and even thousands, of forensic analyses every year.


Take a reality check.


Your claim the prints were not properly analysed is frankly untrue.


Have a closer look at the results again.

That's a reference print. Jeez.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't tell me. The spectrometer for the kids was corrupt, contaminated and wrong. The spectrometer for Rudy was standard, every day and accurate. What's the problem?

Ri-ight. <fx backs out of room slowly>

You don't even know what a spectrometer is, do you? (Well you probably do now after a quick google search, eh...?)

And, once again, an action of movement by an actor is not an "effect". It is a stage direction. If you're going to continue with this strange affectation of inserting phony screenplay/script annotations, please do at least learn how to do it correctly. OK?