The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

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."

Oh, darn it, Chris! Don't rain on the "TMB does not mean no blood is present" parade!

 

[Vixen]

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".

There is more to debating than simply chanting, 'Oh, no, it's not!'


It is intellectually dishonest as you have failed to acknowledge that the law courts found as a FACT the points I made.

Your refuting it in auto-knee-jerk fashion is shockingly poor argument.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Think about it. You accidentally nick your finger whilst chopping vegetables. You give the worktop a wipe with a kitchen towel or sponge.

How much blood do you think remains on the work top?

Luminol will highlight it (might even highlight the radish you were chopping!) but don't be surprised if TMB doesn't pick it up, given it is far less sensitive by several magnitudes than luminol.

 

[Vixen]

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?

I'll have a zinger burger, please. Who says nothing good ever came out of Kentucky?

No doubt she's practising her anguished Janis Joplin-style cry of pain right now in front of a mirror, as she rehearses describing the beastly police who interrogated her for 53 hours without food or water and made her utter false memories about Patrick.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, darn it, Chris! Don't rain on the "TMB does not mean no blood is present" parade!

Unless Raff and Amanda are claiming that Mez was carried off by a dingo, I fail to see what relevance this has.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

5 blood cells! Please.
In practical situations sensitivity of TMB may be in the magnitude of 100 times higher than luminol.

But the real problem is, that TMB and luminol react to the same compounds.

Try to internalize the logical consequence of the latter statement.

PS. I point out that I had already provided scientific literature about TMB in the past, in multiple posts.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

And stated that it is a proven fact that Amanda Knox was in the murder room when Meredith was killed, and that it is incontrovertible that Meredith Kercher was killed by more than one person, and that Amanda Knox is guilty of maliciously obstructing justice by falsely accusing another person.

 

[Machiavelli]

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."

So why not depart from scientific literature and shift to non-fiction. Your new academic policy, I suppose.

PS: no quotes from neo-nazi sites?

 

[Machiavelli]

Italian verdicts have the integrity of a Weimar Mark. Who gives a ****.

And you are the one who calls me "contradictory" on the basis of an assumption of integrity of the US administration.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kobilinsky on presumptive testing for blood

So why not depart from scientific literature and shift to non-fiction. Your new academic policy, I suppose.

PS: no quotes from neo-nazi sites?

I have no idea what your first comment means. Several of us have documented the role of TMB from various sources. In "DNA Forensic and Legal Applications" by Lawrence Kobilinsky et al., they include a discussion of luminol. On p. 36 they wrote, "The major benefits of performing a luminol test rather than one of the colorimetric tests is that one can search large areas very rapidly, and the chemical used does not interfere with any of the other presumptive tests that may be performed following luminol testing. If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed."

My quote from the Chamberlain case additionally documents that prosecutors and their witnesses have overstated the meanings of presumptive tests in other cases. In other words the temptation to make a presumptive test into something that it is not is sometimes overwhelming. Consider the Gregory Taylor case in addition to the Lindy Chamberlain case.

Just because a neo-Nazi quotes from Professor Bytwerk, it does not invalidate Professor Bytwerk's scholarship.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

what about an experiment table about TMB false negatives on luminol-enhanced stains after luminol application?

 

[bagels]

And you are the one who calls me "contradictory" on the basis of an assumption of integrity of the US administration.

It takes two to tango tho, unless the US was going to put troops on the ground in Rome, in which case you have my apology.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no idea what your first comment means. Several of us have documented the role of TMB from various sources. In "DNA Forensic and Legal Applications" by Lawrence Kobilinsky et al., they include a discussion of luminol. On p. 36 they wrote, "The major benefits of performing a luminol test rather than one of the colorimetric tests is that one can search large areas very rapidly, and the chemical used does not interfere with any of the other presumptive tests that may be performed following luminol testing. If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed."

The "sevaral of us" includes me. And the scientific literature - specific research on presumptive tests - induces to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to yours.
Note btw that Kobilinsky itself does not contradict my point at all.

My quote from the Chamberlain case additionally documents that prosecutors and their witnesses have overstated the meanings of presumptive tests in other cases. In other words the temptation to make a presumptive test into something that it is not is sometimes overwhelming. Consider the Gregory Taylor case in addition to the Lindy Chamberlain case.

Yeah that's science. Prosecutors are bad; black guys are robbers; French stink; Muslims beat their wives; Russian girls are whores, and Mexicans have a moustache.
You see, when your research is precise, everything turns out clearly.

Yet still, "presumptive" tests do not yield the same amount of information, and are not merely chemical. There is quite a difference between the information yielded by a luminol test - which is about an area - and a TMB test - which is a less sensitive equivalent test about a sample. A difference is that luminol provides information not only on the existence of a stain, but also on its shape, location, and relation to the crime scene. That is, luminol is an analysis of a crime scene, not on the chemical nature of a stain.
Obviously the information of chemical nature from luminol tests itself may be insufficient to draw conclusions on a latent stain. But a pattern of latent stains itself contains much further information on its nature beyond what can be inferred from its chemical analysis.

Just because a neo-Nazi quotes from Professor Bytwerk, it does not invalidate Professor Bytwerk's scholarship.

Yet if Someone Else quotes from Neo-Nazi, that might somehow tend to discredit Someone Else.

 

[Machiavelli]

Agreed, that's why my view is the case went off the rails with Chieffi.

It's not true. Chieffi didn't discuss the evidence.
(and he did not say what you claim he said about Quintavalle - Chieffi only criticizes Hellmann's reasoning, the inconsistent way he uses quotes from Quintavalle's testimony - or fails to address the parts used by the prosecution)

Bruno/Marasca re-assessed evidence instead (without having it).

 

[bagels]

Chieffi didn't discuss the evidence.

Chieffi only criticizes Hellmann's reasoning, the inconsistent way he uses quotes from Quintavalle's testimony

- or fails to address the parts used by the prosecution)

Funny stuff Mach

 

[bagels]

what about an experiment table about TMB false negatives on luminol-enhanced stains after luminol application?

From your perspective theres this obvious lying killer trying to weasel out of guilt by torturing the forensic evidence enough to win on a technical loophole.

But that's not our perspective. Our perspective is AK is clearly innocent because MK was clearly killed by RG, so if you want to say she was somehow guilty you better have foolproof ironclad evidence. TMB negative DNA negative luminol stains in the shape of half the world's feet in the hallway AK freely admitted to walking barefoot in off a bloody bathmat is not it, never will be it, so you may as well give it up.

The core of this case is RG was spotted on CCTV snooping around the cottage like a burglar before AK could even know she wouldn't be working all night - the cottage had a break-in identical to his break-in at the law office blocks away, MK had his DNA in, on, and around her. His DNA was in her purse where her phones and money were stolen from. His 16 bloody prints were everywhere. He never met Raffaele in his life. He was in the general proximity of AK once by coincidence, they never spoke and did not speak the same language, MK's body had knife wounds all consistent with the switchblade an eyewitness described Rudy pulling during a previous robbery.

You have TMB negative DNA negative luminol stains. And a lying idiot shopkeeper. That's why you have to invent this ridiculous international conspiracy pervading every level of the Italian and US governments to free some irrelevant college girl.

 

[Machiavelli]

Funny stuff Mach

About Quintavalle, Chieffi censures Hellmann's rationale on three points.

First, rejects Hellmann's point that Quintavalle's testimony would be irrelevant anyway on a preliminary level. The ruling out of Quintavalle's testimony preliminarily (independently from his credibility) based on its relevance, even if it was certain, as Hellmann states is a manifestly inconsistent reasoning. Hellmann says Quintavalle's testimony is irrelevant because it happened in the morning and not at the time of Knox's alibi.
Chieffi objects that such reasoning is illogical, because what happens in the morning is part of Knox's account, and also because being in the shop in the early morning would be something wuth a logical connection to the allegation of cleaning the scene.

Second, notes that Hellmann's main argument to assert the non-credibility of Quintavalle as a witness is the fact that his testimony was late. Chieffi calls this argument illogical, and illegitimate. And this is correct jurisprudence.

Third, notes that Hellmann presents a false description of Quintavalle's testimony, including a false description of his early statements to the police, based on trial records.

 

[Machiavelli]

From your perspective theres this obvious lying killer trying to weasel out of guilt by torturing the forensic evidence enough to win on a technical loophole.

But that's not our perspective. Our perspective is AK is clearly innocent because MK was clearly killed by RG, so if you want to say she was somehow guilty you better have foolproof ironclad evidence. TMB negative DNA negative luminol stains in the shape of half the world's feet in the hallway AK freely admitted to walking barefoot in off a bloody bathmat is not it, never will be it, so you may as well give it up.

(...)

Yes I know. But that perspective is called racism.
In neutral a logic, a person is not innocent merely as the consequence of the fact that someone is guilty - as long as "guilty" is meant in a generic assumption. It is not possible to unless you are able to also demonstrate that the person is not only guilty of murder, but also that he was alone committing that murder and was involved in a specific crime scenario.
And there is zero evidence of your burglary or lone-burglar scenario.

Not only there is zero evidence: there is actually no lone assailant scenario. Because no coherent lone assailant scenario exist. The pro-Knox people are unable to present a scenario, a dynamic of events, that would reasonably explain the physical evidence through a plausible dynamic.

The bathmat is not "bloody" - the bathmat has stains in diluted blood with the shape of bare human footprints. Those prints are isolated bare footprints in a diluted substance - a rather unusual finding - and its analogy with the unusual luminol footprints is obvious: isolated, bare feet, in the same area of the house.
There is a set of prints by someone wearing shoes, not caring about leaving prints, leaving a full trail, walking in a straight line, only in the corridoor (not the small bathroom) on a path from Meredith's room in direction of the front door (never turning to loack the room door).
There is another set of footprints by someone who is barefoot, has taken a shower, leaves isolated footprints (cares about not leaving a trail, shuffling around on towels or mats), and moves between the small bathroom and Knox's room (in a subsequent time).
Two sets of dycothomies. Two modus operandi - two different kinds of presence in the house.
The clearest bare print on the bathmat is not compatible with Rudy Guede and compatible with Sollecito.
The two luminol prints in the corridoor are in an area where one of Guede's alleged shoeprints should be - but there is none. There is a 2.2 meters gap between two of his steps. Someone washed it. And also someone wahsed half of another Guede's print - one half is in blood, the other half is visible in luminol.

Even just putting a bare footprint in blood within a scenario with a lone burglar who is wearing shoes, becomes problematic.

And, let's not forget, within this scenario, there is no plausible alternative substance, different from blood, that the Knox defenders would be able to indicate even just to construe a logical doubt.

 

[bagels]

About Quintavalle, Chieffi censures Hellmann's rationale on three points.

First, rejects Hellmann's point that Quintavalle's testimony would be irrelevant anyway on a preliminary level. The ruling out of Quintavalle's testimony preliminarily (independently from his credibility) based on its relevance, even if it was certain, as Hellmann states is a manifestly inconsistent reasoning. Hellmann says Quintavalle's testimony is irrelevant because it happened in the morning and not at the time of Knox's alibi.
Chieffi objects that such reasoning is illogical, because what happens in the morning is part of Knox's account, and also because being in the shop in the early morning would be something wuth a logical connection to the allegation of cleaning the scene.

He doesn't say it would be irrelevant, he says it would be a weak piece of circumstantial evidence, how weak is irrelevant since he doesn't consider it anyway.

Second, notes that Hellmann's main argument to assert the non-credibility of Quintavalle as a witness is the fact that his testimony was late.

He doesn't have a problem with it being late in general, he has a problem with it taking Quintavalle a year to be confident of his own memory, and the suspicious nature of him being more certain he saw Amanda Knox after a year, than when he was directly questioned about her right after the murder while being shown a photograph of her. A totally reasonable position, I might add.

Third, notes that Hellmann presents a false description of Quintavalle's testimony, including a false description of his early statements to the police, based on trial records.

Chieffi nitpicks on am ambiguous point in the testimony where Quintavalle claims he "never saw her head on" but later saw her "close" but still didn't say head on.

Chieffi then buys Quintavalle's absurd lie about blue eyes not being seen in the newspaper photo, but forgets that Quintavalle was shown a full color police photo being questioned just days after that, so his excuse about blue eyes is BS. But that's the problem with the ISC re-interpreting and re-examining the evidence in a couple days in chamber, vs Hellmann who actually sat in trial for a year, you pick up on important details like that.

Nothing is going to salvage the Chieffi report, because it is matter-of-factly Chieffi re-interpreting the evidence (poorly) to his desired viewpoint.

 

[Stacyhs]

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".

There is more to debating than simply chanting, 'Oh, no, it's not!'


It is intellectually dishonest as you have failed to acknowledge that the law courts found as a FACT the points I made.

Your refuting it in auto-knee-jerk fashion is shockingly poor argument.

The trouble with your post, Vixen, is that my post was not an "auto-knee-jerk" argument. What I stated are facts...facts which you completely fail to address. Just how do you account for 13 of 14 luminol+ samples being TMB- and identified as saliva? Nor do you acknowledge that your claim that 50% of TMB negatives are false is incorrect. Nor do you provide any evidence of it. It doesn't matter what the overturned courts found when the Supreme Court states that there was NO EVIDENCE placing either Knox or Sollecito in Kercher's room where the murder occurred and that they should NEVER have been convicted in the first place. Talk about being intellectually dishonest!