The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
Regarding the totally artificial controversy about the translation of some Italian words to English, it appears that a Collins Reverso example uses "ipotizzato" as a verb and not as an adjective. But Collins Reverso states that the word "ipotizzato" is a past participle, which means it can be either be used as either a verb or an adjective (or both).

The transitive verb is "ipotizzare" (according to Collins Reverso).

Here's an explanation of past participle (as used in English):

past participle ►

n.
A verb form indicating past or completed action or time that is used as a verbal adjective in phrases such as baked beans and finished work and with auxiliaries to form the passive voice or perfect and pluperfect tenses in constructions such as She had baked the beans and The work was finished. Also called perfect participle.

Source: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=past+participle+definition&t=ffab&ia=definition

This "controversy" clearly arises from the agenda of PGP to distort the meaning of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. It is as bizarre and meaningless a "controversy" as the one claiming that a positive luminol (presumptive blood test) response alone definitively indicates human blood. On the contrary, it is a well-established forensic science fact that only confirmatory blood testing - such as an antibody-antigen assay - proves that a sample showing a positive luminol response is from human blood. Furthermore, a negative independent second presumptive test (such as a negative TMB test) on a sample with a positive luminol response shows that the sample is not blood. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

TMB or not TMB? That is the question.
 
Machiavelli said:
No no, B/M does not write in a secret code. It states overtly that it agrees with some findings, that some facts are certain, and that's it.
This is a fact not a view. It is true that in B/M there is also additional stuff that is further placing suspicion on Knox & Sollecito while leaving something fuzzy in the language. But there are also statements that are unequivocal.

The points of B/M do not stand on a procedural point of view at all, actually, they violate principles of procedure in a way that is very gross, very primitive. It also doesn't stand from a logical point of view, as you may notice yourself. But they also quite don't sanitize, on the contrary they point their fingers and cry loud trying to blame someone, calling the scientific police "guilty", it looks like they are looking for scapegoats ("they are the ones to blame that we had to release the murderers"). In other words the boss has to blame someone and blames the dog.
It's a pathetic charade.

If you are curious of things behind the scenes, you shall know that Marasca actually did not write the motivations. The report was written entirely by Bruno. Marasca's job was to just appoint Bruno, who is a character very friendly to politicians but never wrote verdicts and was suffering from serious mental issues, suffered a brain stroke and was almost disable.
Click to expand...
If Bruno had such serious mental issues perhaps you shouldn't be so concerned about what the report does or doesn't state is a fact.
 
Vixen said:
Some dumb hick from New York, now in the White House, might well pay Bundy's legal fees, proclaim his innocence and demand we all boycott Italy, whilst taking out eight-page ads demanding the death penalty for the exonerated (black) Central Park jogger defendants.
Click to expand...

Please don't pick on the mentally challenged, it's considered bad form.
 
Vixen said:
TMB or not TMB? That is the question.
Click to expand...

I had thought it plausible that the blood showed on luminol but was too diluted for a positive TMB...however, I read a bit about how the TMB test works. It is super sensitive!

A tiny drop of blood, about the size of the "O" on a US one-cent coin contains over 4,000,000 red blood cells. TMB will be positive for a count as low as 5 red blood cells.
If it is so dilute that less than 5 cells remain in all samples, it won't glow from any blood trace. It is clearly something else reacting. Definitively NOT blood.

You just cannot have a negative TMB test and call it blood, or even "possibly maybe could be" blood, without being a total ignoramus or a big lying liar who lies.
 
Heads up from TJMK:

Sollecito is attempting to settle financially for numerous defamations in book by himself & Gumbel, bodes very badly for Knox as her book is far more defamatory - and amazingly was re-released with all defamations intact. Dr Mignini comes out ahead on all fronts re past attempts to frame him.
Click to expand...

Raff has his defamation trial coming up coterminously with his compensation Supreme Court Appeal. He seems to think it wise to attempt to settle with Mignini over the issue of the alleged defamation of same in his book Honor Bound, and given Mignini has NO outstanding charges against him, and has never been found guilty of any corruption.

He had a censure - a state prosecutor's hazard - for his administrative staff omitting to put Raff's lawyers rights in writing (he had full benefit of a lawyer despite the clerical oversight) - and that's about the sum of it. So much for the PIP's fond claim 'Mignini and Stefanoni are bent and framed the kids'.

So, Raff settles with Mignini (surely this should mean withdrawing his book from sale?) leaving the way clear to claim compo without the embarrassment of just having been found guilty of libel/defamation/calunnia of the man who prosecuted him.

Well, if Raff settles - known as an 'apology' and an admission of being in the wrong - where does it leave Amanda with her 'ten libels a page' book claiming Mignini was obsessed with falsely charging and convicting her and fooling her into believing he was the Mayor or Perugia, when all along he was a prosecutor.

Where would that lead Linda Kulman, in much the same situation as Andrew Gumbel.

Not to mention the publishers, Simon & Shuster and Harper Collins.

Stock up the popcorn, guys.
 
Vixen said:
Heads up from TJMK:



Raff has his defamation trial coming up coterminously with his compensation Supreme Court Appeal. He seems to think it wise to attempt to settle with Mignini over the issue of the alleged defamation of same in his book Honor Bound, and given Mignini has NO outstanding charges against him, and has never been found guilty of any corruption.

He had a censure - a state prosecutor's hazard - for his administrative staff omitting to put Raff's lawyers rights in writing (he had full benefit of a lawyer despite the clerical oversight) - and that's about the sum of it. So much for the PIP's fond claim 'Mignini and Stefanoni are bent and framed the kids'.

So, Raff settles with Mignini (surely this should mean withdrawing his book from sale?) leaving the way clear to claim compo without the embarrassment of just having been found guilty of libel/defamation/calunnia of the man who prosecuted him.

Well, if Raff settles - known as an 'apology' and an admission of being in the wrong - where does it leave Amanda with her 'ten libels a page' book claiming Mignini was obsessed with falsely charging and convicting her and fooling her into believing he was the Mayor or Perugia, when all along he was a prosecutor.

Where would that lead Linda Kulman, in much the same situation as Andrew Gumbel.

Not to mention the publishers, Simon & Shuster and Harper Collins.

Stock up the popcorn, guys.
Click to expand...


Sounds like Mignini is...Waiting to be Heard....

*puts on sunglasses*
 
Sherkeu said:
I had thought it plausible that the blood showed on luminol but was too diluted for a positive TMB...however, I read a bit about how the TMB test works. It is super sensitive!

A tiny drop of blood, about the size of the "O" on a US one-cent coin contains over 4,000,000 red blood cells. TMB will be positive for a count as low as 5 red blood cells.
If it is so dilute that less than 5 cells remain in all samples, it won't glow from any blood trace. It is clearly something else reacting. Definitively NOT blood.

You just cannot have a negative TMB test and call it blood, or even "possibly maybe could be" blood, without being a total ignoramus or a big lying liar who lies.
Click to expand...

Er, you are aware the forensic police tested the area with LUMINOL, several thousands of times more sensitive than TMB?

Given, the police already know the victim's blood is copiously everywhere at the murder scene - yet strangely invisible in the hallway (now you might understand why LUMINOL is extremely popular with forensic murder investigators, all over the world, in helping highlighting invisible blood) - their more immediate concern is to (a) identify the owner of the feet who waded in said blood, and (b) run a DNA test, which, hello? identified Amanda Knox' DNA mixed in with Mez' in two of the footprints, one in the burglary room, where there was NO SIGN AT ALL of Rudy Guede.

TMB is a presumptive test, just like luminol. Less sensitive and is known to give a false negative 50% of the time. If TMB identifies red blood cells, DNA is extracted from the far fewer white cells and FAR MORE MEANINGFUL as evidence in a court of law(circa 700 - 1,200 red cells to 1 white cell ), as it supplies the answer to the question, 'WHOSE?' and 'Who was at the scene'?
 
Vixen said:
Er, you are aware the forensic police tested the area with LUMINOL, several thousands of times more sensitive than TMB?

Given, the police already know the victim's blood is copiously everywhere at the murder scene - yet strangely invisible in the hallway (now you might understand why LUMINOL is extremely popular with forensic murder investigators, all over the world, in helping highlighting invisible blood) - their more immediate concern is to (a) identify the owner of the feet who waded in said blood, and (b) run a DNA test, which, hello? identified Amanda Knox' DNA mixed in with Mez' in two of the footprints, one in the burglary room, where there was NO SIGN AT ALL of Rudy Guede.

TMB is a presumptive test, just like luminol. Less sensitive and is known to give a false negative 50% of the time. If TMB identifies red blood cells, DNA is extracted from the far fewer white cells and FAR MORE MEANINGFUL as evidence in a court of law(circa 700 - 1,200 red cells to 1 white cell ), as it supplies the answer to the question, 'WHOSE?' and 'Who was at the scene'?
Click to expand...

Yes but Amanda was a white American girl so she's allowed to deduct 10 evidence points before it counts.
 
Vixen said:
Let's put it this way: for some people suing is not about money, it is about getting the verdict.

Mignini might turn him down.
Click to expand...

Italian verdicts have the integrity of a Weimar Mark. Who gives a ****.
 
Vixen said:
Some dumb hick from New York, now in the White House, might well pay Bundy's legal fees, proclaim his innocence and demand we all boycott Italy, whilst taking out eight-page ads demanding the death penalty for the exonerated (black) Central Park jogger defendants.
Click to expand...

We finally agree on something. Only this "dumb hick from New York, now in the White House", would be that stupid. Obama certainly wasn't.

Can you cite a single credible source from the Italian government or judiciary that claimed there was any political pressure by the US put on any of the courts?
 
bagels said:
This is an exaggerated view of the US political agenda. We can see that by replacing Amanda Knox with Ted Bundy. Would the US refuse to extradite Ted Bundy because a few dumb hicks in WA thought he was innocent? Would they thank a foreign country for the psychopath's release? Get real.

You cannot hold a view that the US worked for Knox's release and that the evidence of her guilt was overwhelmingly incontrovertible. It is a contradictory position. It's why very view, if any, of your friends on PMF take that position.

The US literally kills people it claims are murderers, the idea that they would turn one of these killers into a saint because they happened to do their killing in the far away land of Italy is absurd.

You're creating beliefs out of nothing to satisfy your emotional need for Amanda to be guilty. Maybe one day you'll understand that.
Click to expand...

WA is this Washington state or Western Australia? It sort of makes more sense if it is the antipodes, but did Australia want to try Bundy? I am sort of lost in your metaphor.
 
Planigale said:
WA is this Washington state or Western Australia? It sort of makes more sense if it is the antipodes, but did Australia want to try Bundy? I am sort of lost in your metaphor.
Click to expand...

I was parodying the PGP view of Knox "groupies"
 
Vixen said:
Is there any nationality you do like?
Click to expand...

If you want to cheerlead the Italian judicial system you can start with the final word of their highest court, which acquitted Amanda Knox. I'll wait.
 
Vixen said:
Er, you are aware the forensic police tested the area with LUMINOL, several thousands of times more sensitive than TMB?

Given, the police already know the victim's blood is copiously everywhere at the murder scene - yet strangely invisible in the hallway (now you might understand why LUMINOL is extremely popular with forensic murder investigators, all over the world, in helping highlighting invisible blood) - their more immediate concern is to (a) identify the owner of the feet who waded in said blood, and (b) run a DNA test, which, hello? identified Amanda Knox' DNA mixed in with Mez' in two of the footprints, one in the burglary room, where there was NO SIGN AT ALL of Rudy Guede.

TMB is a presumptive test, just like luminol. Less sensitive and is known to give a false negative 50% of the time. If TMB identifies red blood cells, DNA is extracted from the far fewer white cells and FAR MORE MEANINGFUL as evidence in a court of law(circa 700 - 1,200 red cells to 1 white cell ), as it supplies the answer to the question, 'WHOSE?' and 'Who was at the scene'?
Click to expand...

Luminol is used because it is inexpensive, easily applied over large areas and is good at revealing potential blood. It is always followed up with another test, like TMB, due to its high false positive rate. In Sollecito's apartment alone, there were 14 luminol positive traces, of which only one, on the kitchen mat, was identified as blood . It provided DNA that identified an unknown male (Uomo 6). The rest were all identified as saliva, which luminol also gives a positive reaction to. That's 1 out of 14 luminol positive samples that turned out to be blood.

The feet that "waded in blood" were never identified as Knox's as her DNA was not found in the ones in the hallway and they all tested negative for blood. They were deemed "compatible" with Knox but they were also never compared to Kercher's, Romanelli's, or Mezzetti's feet either. As for the "footprints" in Romanelli's room, they were not "footprints" at all but amorphous blobs. They also tested negative for blood. One revealed Kercher's DNA only (but no blood) and the other was predominately Kercher's DNA (not blood) and Knox's DNA as a minor contributor. Neither are evidence of murder as they could have been left there at any time during the weeks the two lived there and even deposited at different times.

As for there being NO SIGN AT ALL OF GUEDE, only FIVE samples were taken in the entire room. Additionally, he would have been wearing shoes which would not tend to have his DNA on the soles, and quite possibly gloves. It is completely logical for a burglar, especially on a cold Nov. night, to wear gloves for obvious reasons.

As for TMB being "Less sensitive and is known to give a false negative 50% of the time," you are misleading on the first and just plain wrong on the second. It is less sensitive but it is still extremely sensitive. To imply that all these negative TMB tests were due to there simply being less than 5 red blood cells is ridiculous, especially considering that there was no evidence of any attempt to clean up these luminol positive samples. As for TMB having a 50% false negative rate, that is completely untrue. What does have a 50% false positive rate is luminol according to Prof Gino who testified that, in her own professional experience at crime scenes, luminol positive stains are TMB negative for blood 50% of the time. That does not mean the TMB negative results are "false".
 
I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to produce this alleged abundance of "scientific literature" that states TMB negative results do not indicate no blood is present.

Now, I understand that there could be some interference of some kind in a unique situation, but to think that ALL the luminol+/ TMB- results in both the via della Pergola cottage and Sollecito's apartment fell victim to this is rather far fetched. Just as it's far fetched to think all of them had less than 5 red blood cells.
 
Amanda will be speaking at the Kentucky Bar Association Annual Convention on June 23.

I wonder how many Kentucky lawyers were threatened with being disbarred if they don't attend?:rolleyes:
 
Not the first time a presumptive test has been misused or ignored

From pp. 92-93 in the book Innocence Regained (Norman H. Young), which is about the Lindy Chamberlain case: "But a screening test [orthotolidine, which is chemically similar to TMB] is only presumptive for the presence of blood and not proof. It is a cheap and quick method for isolating those substances which warrant the application of the more expensive and time-consuming specific tests. A positive result using the orthotolidine screening technique suggests that blood may be present and further specific tests may prove worthwhile, whereas a negative reaction indicates that there is no blood present and extra testing would be pointless. In practice, Joy Kuhl ignored both of these limitations."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom