The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[RoseMontague]

It still doesn't change the fact that, in order to look UP at the car park, one would stand as close to the window as possible and look up from the lower section of it. Standing on a chair a couple feet away from it would raise the line of sight and cut off the upper view.

True this. It makes it harder to see the car park.
Which is why I said just standing in the tub might give a better angle. I'm not sure why Vixen is convinced by this silly Free Rudy stuff. It's an idiotic theory

 

[TruthCalls]

Might have been standing there a long time, hence a chair is more comfortable than balancing on a narrow ridge.

Why would they be standing on a chair, leaning over the tub to look thru a small window when there was a full size window in the next room with basically the same view?

And btw, since I clean my heat/exhaust unit directly over the tub by standing on the top rim of the tub, I can tell you this is easy to do, and it would be made easier by having a window ledge to hold on to.

 

[Numbers]

No, As far as I can tell, there is no documentation in the records to show her {Stefanoni's} materials and methods for these tests. (There is of couse the possibility that I just wasn't able to find it )

In her SAL report, traces 00 - 10 only have "Gatto" listed under "Specie Animale"...

And so far I have found "Gatto" (counting in "Gatti" and "Gattino") mentioned only four times in her testimony (page 12):


Looks like neither prosecution or defence questioned or better even asked about her "methods" when it came to "the cat's blood downstairs"...

Here is a Google translation of Stefanoni's testimony on the alleged cat blood quoted in Methos' post.

Stefanoni attributes the blood to a cat wandering into the downstairs flat after the police had broken into it, injuring its feet on the broken glass that resulted from the forced entry of the police, and thus depositing drops of blood. She does not mention the two blood traces on the light switch in the downstairs flat that she did not claim to have forensically tested for cat blood and which she apparently DNA profiled according to her records. Those profiles, if indeed they were run, were suppressed.

Thus, the cat and wound (apparently in the cat's feet) that Stefanoni attributes the alleged blood in the downstairs flat are not the same as the cat and wound mentioned by the flat tenants (that was a cat with a wounded ear) and there is no mention of head shaking. In his testimony, Giobbi attributed the blood traces on the downstairs flat light switch to a cat jumping against the wall; Stefanoni in fact did not claim this in her documentation given to the defense or in her testimony. These contradictions, and the lack of any description of the date of testing of the alleged cat blood by antibody (or antiserum) or materials and methods, as well as the fact that Stefanoni tested the alleged cat blood for human DNA by PCR and something in the samples indeed, without any doubt, had human DNA, suggests that the whole truth behind the blood traces in the downstairs flat has been suppressed by the police and prosecutor.

This has led to hypotheses that the blood was in fact that of an intruder with a key, most likely Guede, who had apparently cut his hand during his knife attack on Kercher, or that the DNA in the samples was the result of laboratory contamination. This latter is significant in that Stefanoni, asked about possible contamination in her lab, testified to the effect that "no one has ever told me there was contamination in my lab". However, DNA experts such as Peter Gill and others apparently consider the alleged Kercher DNA claimed to be on the blade of the knife from Sollecito's flat likely, perhaps certainly, to be contamination, and the DNA profile on the bra strap hook must be contamination (unless one can demonstrate convincingly that several males indeed had contact with it).

The treatment and reporting of the blood traces in the downstairs flat by the scientific police and prosecutor reinforces the doubt about the credibility of the alleged evidence, especially the alleged DNA evidence, against Knox and Sollecito. Whether or not the hypothesis is true that the DNA profiles would show a bleeding Guede had been in the flat is not critical. The importance of those blood traces to the case is that they cast doubt on the reliability and credibility of the testimony of Stefanoni and Giobbi and on the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Google translation of Stefanoni's testimony:

"the type of trace, so if we have a trace of salivary type, of blood, of seminal fluid and also the nature of this trace, concerning the blood the piliferous {hairy} formations that are also shared by animals, so we can also have traces of animal blood , it happens, but enough ... we often say, and also piliferous formations, because dogs and cats are the most ... let's say those more normal suppliers of biological finds that being animals that live with the man, anyway in a apartment, in a car some piliferous formations are found that by eye it is not possible to establish preliminarily if they are human or animal then they analyze ...
QUESTION - Did this happen even in this investigation?
ANSWER - Unfortunately, even in this case it happened that a kitten made us crazy because initially in the inspection, the inspection of the house in Via della Pergola, so the house where the body was found unfortunately we were heavily misled, almost teased by the fact that a cat, apparently wounded, had entered the apartment we say on the floor below that of the victim, evidently there were some ground glass, broken in short that had been produced to enter the apartment, because the keys could not be found I know, and so this kitten unfortunately got injured and left blood everywhere, which is to say by making us do a crazy job of sampling because we thought that someone had obviously ... in short I don't know, connected to the crime and therefore he had lost blood, instead then he was a cat indeed."

 

[Numbers]

Here is a Google translation of Stefanoni's testimony on the alleged cat blood quoted in Methos' post.

Stefanoni attributes the blood to a cat wandering into the downstairs flat after the police had broken into it, injuring its feet on the broken glass that resulted from the forced entry of the police, and thus depositing drops of blood. She does not mention the two blood traces on the light switch in the downstairs flat that she did not claim to have forensically tested for cat blood and which she apparently DNA profiled according to her records. Those profiles, if indeed they were run, were suppressed.

Thus, the cat and wound (apparently in the cat's feet) that Stefanoni attributes the alleged blood in the downstairs flat are not the same as the cat and wound mentioned by the flat tenants (that was a cat with a wounded ear) and there is no mention of head shaking. In his testimony, Giobbi attributed the blood traces on the downstairs flat light switch to a cat jumping against the wall; Stefanoni in fact did not claim this in her documentation given to the defense or in her testimony. These contradictions, and the lack of any description of the date of testing of the alleged cat blood by antibody (or antiserum) or materials and methods, as well as the fact that Stefanoni tested the alleged cat blood for human DNA by PCR and something in the samples indeed, without any doubt, had human DNA, suggests that the whole truth behind the blood traces in the downstairs flat has been suppressed by the police and prosecutor.

This has led to hypotheses that the blood was in fact that of an intruder with a key, most likely Guede, who had apparently cut his hand during his knife attack on Kercher, or that the DNA in the samples was the result of laboratory contamination. This latter is significant in that Stefanoni, asked about possible contamination in her lab, testified to the effect that "no one has ever told me there was contamination in my lab". However, DNA experts such as Peter Gill and others apparently consider the alleged Kercher DNA claimed to be on the blade of the knife from Sollecito's flat likely, perhaps certainly, to be contamination, and the DNA profile on the bra strap hook must be contamination (unless one can demonstrate convincingly that several males indeed had contact with it).

The treatment and reporting of the blood traces in the downstairs flat by the scientific police and prosecutor reinforces the doubt about the credibility of the alleged evidence, especially the alleged DNA evidence, against Knox and Sollecito. Whether or not the hypothesis is true that the DNA profiles would show a bleeding Guede had been in the flat is not critical. The importance of those blood traces to the case is that they cast doubt on the reliability and credibility of the testimony of Stefanoni and Giobbi and on the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Google translation of Stefanoni's testimony:

"the type of trace, so if we have a trace of salivary type, of blood, of seminal fluid and also the nature of this trace, concerning the blood the piliferous {hairy} formations that are also shared by animals, so we can also have traces of animal blood , it happens, but enough ... we often say, and also piliferous formations, because dogs and cats are the most ... let's say those more normal suppliers of biological finds that being animals that live with the man, anyway in a apartment, in a car some piliferous formations are found that by eye it is not possible to establish preliminarily if they are human or animal then they analyze ...
QUESTION - Did this happen even in this investigation?
ANSWER - Unfortunately, even in this case it happened that a kitten made us crazy because initially in the inspection, the inspection of the house in Via della Pergola, so the house where the body was found unfortunately we were heavily misled, almost teased by the fact that a cat, apparently wounded, had entered the apartment we say on the floor below that of the victim, evidently there were some ground glass, broken in short that had been produced to enter the apartment, because the keys could not be found I know, and so this kitten unfortunately got injured and left blood everywhere, which is to say by making us do a crazy job of sampling because we thought that someone had obviously ... in short I don't know, connected to the crime and therefore he had lost blood, instead then he was a cat indeed."

To the above I will add the following:

When it comes to scientific or forensic documentation, absence of evidence (that is, failure to produce the documentation) is evidence of absence (there was never any documentation, the documentation has been hidden or destroyed as part of a fraud, or the alleged testing was never done). Thus, it is my belief or opinion that Stefanoni never did any antibody or antiserum species-specific testing of the downstairs blood traces, but claimed and recorded summary results - that is, merely checking "positive" or "negative" against her desired outcomes in a list consisting of human, cat, and dog. And she desired the downstairs blood traces to be from cat to justify not producing the human DNA profiles from her PCR data obtained from those blood traces. I presume her motivation for choosing cat was the downstairs tenants had testified that they had two cats. To my knowledge, there was no witness who claimed to have seen a cat step on broken glass and deposit blood in the downstairs flat.

 

[TomG]

I've searched through Guede's diary and can no mention of hearing a noise downstairs. Do you have a source for this?

No, and apologies are due, thanks for pointing that out. I was being glaikit.

Second highlight: Agreed. I see no advantage for him doing this. By March, he certainly understands about DNA profiling, etc.

Are you sure? I'm not quite sure what to say. I'm not used to people agreeing with me.

I was looking at the video of some blood droplet collection in the upstairs apartment. I noticed the droplet had very clear contained borders but after the collection, it had been smeared to where it looked like it had spread out. Look at about 18:12 to 18:29
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

I was also shocked to see the tech use the same swab to collect from distinctly different droplets. S/he first swabs one drop, then the other, then goes back to the first drop and swabs it again and then goes to the second drop and swabs it yet again! What if these had been droplets from 2 people? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy work.

Yes, and to think that it could well have been two different traces if you take into account the fact that Rudy had been cut himself in the struggle. Ron Hendry goes into more detail about this in his book.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

The blood droplets do not support the "cat stepped on glass" theory at all. There would have been bloody paw prints. Additionally, the round droplets also testify to not being from bleeding paws as the pressure of the paw as it walked would have prevented round droplets. It's a load of nonsense.

 

[Numbers]

The blood droplets do not support the "cat stepped on glass" theory at all. There would have been bloody paw prints. Additionally, the round droplets also testify to not being from bleeding paws as the pressure of the paw as it walked would have prevented round droplets. It's a load of nonsense.

Good point, but it is the testimony of the key scientific police official, Stefanoni. She was, however, careful not to say that the cat walked on the wall by the light switch.

Do you find any issue with Giobbi's testimony that the cat jumped against the wall by the light switch?

Have you had the opportunity to look at the video of the police search or walk-through of the downstairs flat? Did any of the blood droplets look like they were the result of a cat with a bloody ear shaking its head?

Did any of the blood on the bed or the chair look like it was from a cat with a bleeding foot or ear? Could the cat have been rubbing its ear against the bed or chair? Could the blood trace pattern result from a person with a bleeding hand who touched the arm rest of the chair? There also seem to be some blood drop-shapes on the seat of that chair: could the cat have jumped on it, or could there be another reasonable explanation?

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not sure why Vixen is convinced by this silly Free Rudy stuff. It's an idiotic theory

I'm lost for words, mostly because I'm confused by your confusion.

 

[TomG]

Because the top of the bathroom window is lower than the parking area, in order to look UP you actually need to get close to the window and look up from the bottom of the window. Standing on a chair or the rim of the tub farther back from the window would actually cut off most of the upper part of the view including the parking parapet.

Sorry, it looks as though I've totally confused you again. When I mentioned the "shutters" in post 2435, I was referring to the shutters in Ricardo's room which looks to be entirely secure even though frame 18:31:58 shows the actual window, there is no way the cat could have got in that I can see. So my basic argument is that the cat couldn't have in via the door either since it was locked and the cops had to kick it open. As far as I can see the blood on the floor is a certainty. So-

Q. How did it get there?
A. Easy, the blood was on the floor before the boys locked up and went away, they just didn't notice.
Q. How did it go unnoticed, when the blood spots would have been clearly visible when the boys pished on the floor, resulting in dried urine stains showing traces of blood.
A. TBA

It may be pro-guilt, but I have not found their translations of documents to be inaccurate. The problem lies in their comments and analyses, and their interpretation of what things mean/might mean, etc.

That would have to be open to consensus dare I say.

Just to add that I am aware that the broken glass fragments in Ricardo's room would more likely to have come from Zugarini booting in the glass window and trailing it about the place rather than anything to do with Rudy.

Hoots

 

[Numbers]

Sorry, it looks as though I've totally confused you again. When I mentioned the "shutters" in post 2435, I was referring to the shutters in Ricardo's room which looks to be entirely secure even though frame 18:31:58 shows the actual window, there is no way the cat could have got in that I can see. So my basic argument is that the cat couldn't have in via the door either since it was locked and the cops had to kick it open. As far as I can see the blood on the floor is a certainty. So-

Q. How did it get there?
A. Easy, the blood was on the floor before the boys locked up and went away, they just didn't notice. Q. How did it go unnoticed, when the blood spots would have been clearly visible when the boys pished on the floor, resulting in dried urine stains showing traces of blood. A. TBA


That would have to be open to consensus dare I say.

Just to add that I am aware that the broken glass fragments in Ricardo's room would more likely to have come from Zugarini booting in the glass window and trailing it about the place rather than anything to do with Rudy.

Hoots

I like your theory, especially the "TBA" part.

Let's see how it matches some of the other evidence.

For example, the blue pillowcase on the floor with blood traces on it.

One of the tenants said in a police interview that he had left that pillowcase hanging on a line (to dry after washing).

Could a cat with a bleeding ear have knocked it down and dripped blood or rubbed its ear on it? Could there be some other more credible explanation?

What about the clothing scattered about? Was that due to a playful cat messing around? Or were the tenants a bit messy?

How did the cat get blood on the light switch on the wall? Does your theory agree with Giobbi's testimony that it jumped against the wall? (Note that Stefanoni was careful not to record that those blood traces were from cat.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Good point, but it is the testimony of the key scientific police official, Stefanoni. She was, however, careful not to say that the cat walked on the wall by the light switch.

Do you find any issue with Giobbi's testimony that the cat jumped against the wall by the light switch?

Have you had the opportunity to look at the video of the police search or walk-through of the downstairs flat? Did any of the blood droplets look like they were the result of a cat with a bloody ear shaking its head?

Did any of the blood on the bed or the chair look like it was from a cat with a bleeding foot or ear? Could the cat have been rubbing its ear against the bed or chair? Could the blood trace pattern result from a person with a bleeding hand who touched the arm rest of the chair? There also seem to be some blood drop-shapes on the seat of that chair: could the cat have jumped on it, or could there be another reasonable explanation?

You've asked a lot of questions and I do not pretend to be a blood spatter analyst. I did find these videos very informative. It's well worth the less than 20 minutes to watch both:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XVJ2xBZV2c

https://sites.google.com/site/thescienceofdexter/home/about-blood-spatter-analysis

I found this diagram helpful:

 

[Stacyhs]

Sorry, it looks as though I've totally confused you again. When I mentioned the "shutters" in post 2435, I was referring to the shutters in Ricardo's room which looks to be entirely secure even though frame 18:31:58 shows the actual window, there is no way the cat could have got in that I can see. So my basic argument is that the cat couldn't have in via the door either since it was locked and the cops had to kick it open. As far as I can see the blood on the floor is a certainty. So-

Q. How did it get there?
A. Easy, the blood was on the floor before the boys locked up and went away, they just didn't notice.
Q. How did it go unnoticed, when the blood spots would have been clearly visible when the boys pished on the floor, resulting in dried urine stains showing traces of blood.
A. TBA



That would have to be open to consensus dare I say.

Just to add that I am aware that the broken glass fragments in Ricardo's room would more likely to have come from Zugarini booting in the glass window and trailing it about the place rather than anything to do with Rudy.

Hoots

No, you didn't confuse me at all. My post had nothing to do with the shutters. I was commenting on where one would need to stand in front of the window to look up toward the car park...which would not be on a chair.

I agree that the blood was most likely already there as the testimony did say the cat had been bleeding quite a bit (including from shaking its head) a few days before the murder. Not only is it completely plausible that these young men were not diligent housekeepers as evidenced by the urine, but much of the smaller drops of blood could have simply gone unseen. Those drops by the light switch are very small.

I don't consider Giobbi an impeccable witness, but he did say he saw one of the windows was open. The boys confirmed they often left a window open for the cat to come in. I believe they said Meredith was also asked to not only to water the weed downstairs but to feed the cats. This begs the question as to where she fed them. Did she leave food outside or did she feed them inside? If inside, I highly doubt the boys locked them in for several days so they must have had a way to go in and out.

 

[Stacyhs]

I like your theory, especially the "TBA" part.

Let's see how it matches some of the other evidence.

For example, the blue pillowcase on the floor with blood traces on it.

One of the tenants said in a police interview that he had left that pillowcase hanging on a line (to dry after washing).

Could a cat with a bleeding ear have knocked it down and dripped blood or rubbed its ear on it? Could there be some other more credible explanation?

What about the clothing scattered about? Was that due to a playful cat messing around? Or were the tenants a bit messy?
How did the cat get blood on the light switch on the wall? Does your theory agree with Giobbi's testimony that it jumped against the wall? (Note that Stefanoni was careful not to record that those blood traces were from cat.)

1. Absolutely plausible. Anyone whoever had a cat knows they can, and do, jump on things knocking them down.

2. Four early 20-something boys living in an apartment being sloppy and leaving clothes on the floor? Unheard of!

3. Blood spatter from shaking its head as Bonassi or Marzan claimed the cat did. The cat jumping against it would have left smeared blood as was seen on the upstairs bathroom light switch.

ETA: The only reason Guede would have gone downstairs was, as suggested, to change his bloody clothes. Yet, no clothing was reported missing by any of the boys. To my mind, that fact discounts Guede having gone downstairs. As for Vixen's earlier suggestion that it was AK who went downstairs, what possible reason could she have to do so? Also remember, according to Vixen, Knox was "bleeding profusely"; if any of the blood downstairs had belonged to her, we can be certain that the prosecution would have said so.

 

[Welshman]

The ECH ruled there was zero evidence to support Knox' HIV claims. What a terrible and disgusting accusation to make against a professional doctor, whose job it was to ensure the good health of the inmates. He or she is ethically obliged to pass on the results of any health test. An HIV test is often false-positive and Knox was told this at the time and to await another test.

This character tried to ruined the reputation of a prison doctor.

If Amanda was given a genuine HIV test, can Vixen explain the irregularities in the article below

https://nigelscott.co.uk/2016/05/25/amanda-knox-and-the-hiv-test-fraud/

 

[Numbers]

1. Absolutely plausible. Anyone whoever had a cat knows they can, and do, jump on things knocking them down.

2. Four early 20-something boys living in an apartment being sloppy and leaving clothes on the floor? Unheard of!

3. Blood spatter from shaking its head as Bonassi or Marzan claimed the cat did. The cat jumping against it would have left smeared blood as was seen on the upstairs bathroom light switch. ETA: The only reason Guede would have gone downstairs was, as suggested, to change his bloody clothes. Yet, no clothing was reported missing by any of the boys. To my mind, that fact discounts Guede having gone downstairs. As for Vixen's earlier suggestion that it was AK who went downstairs, what possible reason could she have to do so? Also remember, according to Vixen, Knox was "bleeding profusely"; if any of the blood downstairs had belonged to her, we can be certain that the prosecution would have said so.

I thought Giobbi's testimony that the bloody-ear cat jumped against the wall made no sense because cats are careful in their jumps. That is, they tend to jump with the aim of landing in a safe place.

Blood spatter from a bloody-ear cat shaking its head would seem to be a better theory, but I would expect that there would be more drops on the wall, and more on the level of the cat's head. The light switch is, I believe, several feet above the floor (I don't have a measurement) and I believe well above the level of a house cat's head if the cat is standing on the floor. One poster on this forum, some years ago, suggested that Meredith Kercher had been carrying the bloody-ear cat in her arms and its bloody ear had accidentally touched the light switch. That seems to me to be the best theory excluding one involving contact with the switch by someone whose hand was bleeding.

It should be noted, however, that Stefanoni never claimed in her records to have tested the light switch blood for species, and samples from those traces were apparently DNA profiled, although not subjected to quantitative PCR. Stefanoni used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify the DNA on those samples, and recorded a "too low" reading - meaning there might have been no DNA at all in them. It's the same reading that she got for the knife blade sample that returned Kercher's DNA profile. However, the inadequate sensitivity of the Qubit for quantification of low DNA concentrations compared to quantitative PCR leaves the actual DNA concentration uncertain.

 

[Stacyhs]

The ECH ruled there was zero evidence to support Knox' HIV claims. What a terrible and disgusting accusation to make against a professional doctor, whose job it was to ensure the good health of the inmates. He or she is ethically obliged to pass on the results of any health test. An HIV test is often false-positive and Knox was told this at the time and to await another test.

This character tried to ruined the reputation of a prison doctor.

If Amanda was given a genuine HIV test, can Vixen explain the irregularities in the article below

https://nigelscott.co.uk/2016/05/25/amanda-knox-and-the-hiv-test-fraud/

As I said earlier, the ECHR said nothing about her HIV test. It's nonsense to claim Knox was trying to ruin the doctor's reputation. THIS is what she wrote about the incident in WTBH pg. 213:

Dressed in a white lab coat, my medical file in hand, he aid, "We got the results of your blood test." His bedside manner as as warm as gelato. "You tested positive for HIV.
I was so shocked I couldn't think. I couldn't make sense of what he was saying.
The doctor saw my panic. "Don't worry," he said, offering me a spoonful of compassion. "It could be a mistake. We'll need to do more tests."

His reassurance struck me as hollow, as if he were just trying to postpone my inevitable anguish. I thought my head would explode from anxiety. I was in prison for a crime I hadn't committed and now I might be infected with HIV?

Vixen sees this as trying to ruin the doctor's reputation. Sigh...she's not given to gross exaggeration at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

I thought Giobbi's testimony that the bloody-ear cat jumped against the wall made no sense because cats are careful in their jumps. That is, they tend to jump with the aim of landing in a safe place.

Good point. A cat wouldn't jump up against a wall like that; they jump to land on something.

Blood spatter from a bloody-ear cat shaking its head would seem to be a better theory, but I would expect that there would be more drops on the wall, and more on the level of the cat's head. The light switch is, I believe, several feet above the floor (I don't have a measurement) and I believe well above the level of a house cat's head if the cat is standing on the floor. One poster on this forum, some years ago, suggested that Meredith Kercher had been carrying the bloody-ear cat in her arms and its bloody ear had accidentally touched the light switch. That seems to me to be the best theory excluding one involving contact with the switch by someone whose hand was bleeding.

I cannot find where in the downstairs apt. this switch was located. The video does not show it nor does a google search identify its location. It's entirely plausible that the cat was on top of a piece of furniture, a dresser, or a bed nearby, shook its head, and the blood flew straight or nearly straight across. The circular appearance of those drops is indicative of coming from a near 45 degree angle as explained in the link I posted above.

It should be noted, however, that Stefanoni never claimed in her records to have tested the light switch blood for species, and samples from those traces were apparently DNA profiled, although not subjected to quantitative PCR. Stefanoni used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify the DNA on those samples, and recorded a "too low" reading - meaning there might have been no DNA at all in them. It's the same reading that she got for the knife blade sample that returned Kercher's DNA profile. However, the inadequate sensitivity of the Qubit for quantification of low DNA concentrations compared to quantitative PCR leaves the actual DNA concentration uncertain.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said earlier, the ECHR said nothing about her HIV test. It's nonsense to claim Knox was trying to ruin the doctor's reputation. THIS is what she wrote about the incident in WTBH pg. 213:



Vixen sees this as trying to ruin the doctor's reputation. Sigh...she's not given to gross exaggeration at all.

As has been pointed out many times before, if Knox's recollection of this exchange is accurate (and of course there are plenty of reasons why it possibly might not be accurate), then the prison doctor absolutely would not have been following WHO protocol in respect of these 2-part assays which were used in 2007.

The very reason why 2-part tests were used at that time (before accurate and cost-effective 1-part assays were widely available) was this: the first of those tests (the ELISA test) was used to test for a true negative - i.e. if the ELISA test came back negative, then HIV was virtually guaranteed not to be present (= an extremely low false-negative ratio). The patient could at that point be reassured that they were not an HIV carrier, and no further testing would be required.

BUT

If the ELISA test came back positive, this in and of itself was extremely far from indicating that the patient was carrying HIV. In fact, if the patient did not identify in a high-risk group (e.g. promiscuous gay men or intravenous drug users who shared needles), an ELISA positive was still significantly more likely to end up with a negative diagnosis for HIV than a positive diagnosis.

And that's where the second test came in: the Western Blot test. This test took much longer to produce results than the ELISA test, and cost a lot more money. It also had a high false-negative ratio for HIV. But since false negatives had already effectively been ruled out by a positive ELISA test, if the subsequent Western Blot test came back negative, it was virtually certain to be a true negative, and therefore a positive ELISA followed by a negative WB would act as a confirmatory negative for HIV.

And conversely, the WB assay had a very low false-positive ratio (again, the exact opposite of ELISA). Therefore a positive ELISA followed by a positive WB served as a confirmatory positive for HIV.


What does all of that mean in respect of someone like Knox? Well, the most important part is the bolded sentence above. Which is precisely why WTO guidelines around these 2-part HIV assays clearly stated that if the patient's first ELISA test comes back positive, the patient (in all cases, but especially in the case of patients who were not identifying in any high-risk groups) should receive that information in an extremely carefully-framed manner. The standard practice would be for the physician to say something like: "We are going to need to carry out a second, confirmatory test on your sample; the first test indicated that there's at least a possibility that you might carry HIV, but it's nothing more than that at this stage and it's only by carrying out the second test that we will know properly." And for people identifying in low-risk groups it would have been appropriate to add: "For someone with your lifestyle, even a positive first test means it's still actually a good deal more likely that you do not carry HIV than that you do carry it."

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it would have been ethically proper to be extremely careful about the way in which a positive ELISA test was revealed to a patient - particularly to one with a low-risk lifestyle......

 

[Stacyhs]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it would have been ethically proper to be extremely careful about the way in which a positive ELISA test was revealed to a patient - particularly to one with a low-risk lifestyle......

Oh dear, LJ...now you've done it. You've opened the door for a certain someone to come riding in with the " But Knox was promiscuous! She slept with SEVEN men!!!" banner flying. Never mind that most of them she slept with once or used a condom with:



ETA: In her prison diary, Amanda also writes (in her attempt to ruin the doctor's reputation ) sometime after the initial HIV result:

So he (Agiro) sat me down with the doctor who said it was absolutely unsure and the test would almost definitely come out negative.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear, LJ...now you've done it. You've opened the door for a certain someone to come riding in with the " But Knox was promiscuous! She slept with SEVEN men!!!" banner flying. Never mind that most of them she slept with once or used a condom with:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d782be329672.jpg[/qimg]

Not to mention that of these seven, only the last two on the list were sexual partners of Knox dating from her time in Europe in the Summer and Autumn (fall) of 2007. The other five dated from her life in Seattle, at which point she would have been living at home or in student accommodation for UW (and heck, at the end of my second year at university, I don't think I knew all that many people who HADN'T had at least five sexual partners in their life to date....).

But of course that doesn't stop many/most pro-guilt commentators from grafting on the associated lie (in a clear bid to smear Knox's character) that she had sex with seven different men just in the several weeks she'd been in Italy...........