Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

tests

Man, I must be a rubbish explainer. Nobody understood me.

The test has a sensitivity of 1:10,000. That doesn't mean that you can detect arbitrarily small amounts of blood so long as nobody has diluted them before hand in enough water to take them beyond this dilution. Surely? Luminol has a sensitivity of 1:7,000. What does that mean in the context of dry, but invisibly faint bloody footprints? Surely it's the ratio of Luminol to blood residue?

Say you have a tiny spot of blood to which you want to add your blood detecting mixture. If the ratio of blood to blood detecting mixture is better than 1:10,000 the test is good, if not you're out of luck. As the size of the blood sample gets smaller you have to use smaller and smaller drops of blood detecting chemical. At the levels we are dealing with here one would have to use tiny fractions of a drop of blood detecting chemical in order to get a result.

I may still be wrong, but given what arse people clearly thought I was talking, I wish it had been pointed out at the time. If anybody still thinks I'm talking arse I'd be grateful to be told where I've gone wrong.

Both tests (luminol and TMB) may be at least an order of magnitude more sensitive than the values you quoted above:

A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques.

Webb JL, Creamer JI, Quickenden TI.
Luminescence. 2006 Jul-Aug;21(4):214-20.

 

[stilicho]

No, the average stay on death row in the United States is about ten years and most states have automatic appeals when the death penalty is the sentence. If this conviction happened in California she would probably never be put to death.

I guess it's just the impression people get who don't live there. It doesn't help to be on the same lists as China, Vietnam and Iran.

Another quirk of the media, I suppose. That's the original reason I was interested in this case to begin with. If it hadn't been for the media blitz around the time of her conviction, I'd never even have heard of it.

In the USA itself, aren't lethal injections sort of page A34 news?

On the other hand, the women's prison in Washington State, where AK would likely serve her sentence, had been featured in the news for widespread prisoner violence, a story from around '97 or '98 about institutionalised abuse of mentally ill convicts, and something more recent about STDs. If I can find it again, I'll try to post the name of the correctional facility where she'd likely be held if she was returned to the US. Certainly there'd be none of this holidaying spirit she's written about from Capanne, where she referred to her cellmates as roommates.

 

[Alt+F4]

If I can find it again, I'll try to post the name of the correctional facility where she'd likely be held if she was returned to the US. Certainly there'd be none of this holidaying spirit she's written about from Capanne, where she referred to her cellmates as roommates.

If the U.S. was able to somehow able to her back on some sort of prisoner exchange I'm certain she would be in federal custody. Washington State has nothing to do with this case.

I think Amanda's family and friends are doing a great disservice to her case by trying to get Washington State politicians and Hillary Clinton involved. Right or wrong it's only going to make the Italians more adamant about holding on to her.

Anyone remember Lori Berenson? An American citizen convicted of treason and terrorism in Peru she has been in a Peruvian prison for the past 15 years. I think if her parents had not tried to get the U.S. government involved the Peruvians would have quietly freed and deported her years ago.

 

[shuttlt]

Both tests (luminol and TMB) may be at least an order of magnitude more sensitive than the values you quoted above:

A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques.

Webb JL, Creamer JI, Quickenden TI.
Luminescence. 2006 Jul-Aug;21(4):214-20.

I'm certainly aware of higher values being quoted. I've seen TMB as high as 1:1,000,000 though I think that was more of a theoretical maximum than a practical one. The practical maximum presumably depends on the specifics of the test.

As for the values I quoted. The 1:10,000 comes from the Innocence Project open letter (they do say it can be more sensitive than that, but that's the number the quote). The same source as the claim that the test is sensitive enough to all but exclude the possibility of the DNA being from blood.

I really have been doing my homework on this.

 

[Fulcanelli]

He was caught with a woman's watch in his backpack when he was arrested in Milan, and Momi said he hassled women and tried to steal their purses. I'd thought Momi's evidence had been dismissed, but Nadeau says they used a witness's evidence that he hassled women as part of the verdict, so presumably they saw some merit in his testimony. And we know Guede was a petty thief; it's hardly a stretch to think he stole purses when he had the chance. And he was broke (unless you're denying that?).

Sigh. He was caught with a watch in his bag, so? It doesn't mean he stole it. Now, Mommi. It's about time you properly researched the background to this case. If you had done, you would know that Mommi got thrown out of court, along with his testimony and was put under criminal investigation because he was filmed outside the court room being paid several thousand Euros to testify against Rudy.

Why not? They would have been in her purse and pockets, which he certainly went through. And they were small enough to put in his pockets and carry unnoticed, whereas someone might have noticed a laptop bag. But I think he took them first to check whether he could get her bank details from them (hence the call to her bank), and second so that if anyone called her, they wouldn't hear her phones ringing from behind her door and hence might just assume her door was locked because she was out. This is consistent with the more general attempt to delay the discovery of the body.

They'd have been in her purse or pockets...close to hand you mean, just like the laptops and I-pods were close to hand? So again, why not the laptops, or at least one of them? Why not the I-pod? Why take the phones only to almost immediately throw them away? Why throw them in a garden instead of the ravine next to it, something Rudy well knew the location of being a long-term resident of Perugia? Why no micro-traces of blood on the phones?

Someone would have notice a laptop bag??? So? 'Quick, call the police, that guy's carrying a laptop bag!!!'...like that you mean? Is carrying laptops illegal in Italy? And if someone were to see him, wouldn't the fact of him being seen heading away from the scene full stop make what he was carrying redundant?

Why would her bank details be on the phones? And to continue with your grasping at straws here...why didn't he check the phones for such details at the scene instead of taking them away...or, are you suggesting he checked them in the dark, while in flight and covered in blood? And also, regarding your above point about his maybe 'being seen with a laptop bag', wouldn't he also maybe have been 'seen' checking phones to hunt for bank details? And, whilst he hunted through the phones looking for these fantastical bank details, pushing buttons here and there with all their little crevices and his bloody hands, he also managed to do without leaving not a single micto-trace of blood on them?

LOL. I provided the evidence, and you chose to ignore it without comment, let alone providing any evidence to disprove what I posted. Nice try.

You provided no evidence. Instead you offered an ambiguous statement which you chose to interpret in arbitrary way, an interpretation that has not been supported with any testimony given in the trial or case data released to the media or from inside sources.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because his DNA isn't on the zipper doesn't mean he didn't open it. Otherwise presumably we have to assume that no one opened it, since no one else's DNA was found on it. We also have to assume that Amanda was never in Meredith's bedroom, since her DNA wasn't there either.

It is not only his DNA that isn't on the zip but there is also no fingerprints or blood and considering his hands were wet with blood when he picked up the purse to move it it is clear beyond doubt he did not open it, much less go inside it since there is no blood inside either, something not possible to do when shoving bloody hands inside a purse to rummage around. For this reason, Rudy was acquitted of the theft. This is quite simple, it's not rocket science.

Why would he know where everything was in Laura and Filomena's rooms? He was interrupted before he'd even had a chance to go into Laura's room, and in the middle of ransacking Filomena's. It's silly to think someone who'd just killed a woman would stop to grab a laptop on the way out to sell it - especially someone who'd already been linked to another crime through possession of a stolen laptop. Maybe he WOULD have grabbed it if Meredith hadn't come home and interrupted him, however

What a stupid question. He'd know because he'd ransacked them...apparently. And if his mind was on theft, as you claim, he'd of made a mental note where everything of value was. And according to you, his mind was still on theft after the murder, because according to you, he thieved Meredith's stuff and was so desperate to do so he hung around to rifle through her purse and pockets of her jeans which he would have apparently just taken off, all without leaving a single trace of having done so. So again, you contradict yourself with your own arguments.

Meredith interrupted him? Clearly not. He was in Filomena's room (under your scenario), went through it and took nothing...presumably because he was interrupted by Meredith? Well, clearly he wasn't, because he went on to Laura's room and went through that. So, why was nothing taken from Filomena's room...why was nothing taken out and pit in the front room ready to take out the front door, or shoved in some booty bag? Yet nothing at all was removed from any of the rooms except Meredith's items and Amanda's lamp (the one room that wasn't rifled through). Sorry, but you sound less and less plausible as you go on.

Incidentally, why wouldn't Guede have grabbed a laptop anyway, even if he didn't break into the house? He was a thief and he needed cash. Does he only steal things during working hours or something?

Perhaps he wasn't the thief you appear desperate to make him out to be, how about that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

They wouldn't identify the laptop (well they might, but that's not really the point), they'd identify Guede as the one who sold it to them. Selling it would mean creating witnesses who could've connected Guede to the crime,

How can a wiped laptop be linked to the crime?

Could not the credit cards be linked to the crime??? Far more!

Could not the phones be linked to the crime? Yes indeed, but still according to you he stole them.

And also, he may simply have taken them because he was going through her purse/pockets (probably to look for the front door keys - Guede said they were in her purse, which seems an odd detail for him to know if he didn't take them?) and the phones were there, and small enough to put in his pockets. Might be a mistake to presume he was thinking totally rationally about it.

Oh I see, he wasn't thinking rationally so he took the phones. But at the same time he was thinking rationally about the laptops. More intellectual double speak and cartwheels.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The good thing is that the report rejected most of the prosecution's crazy mental gymnastics and focused on the forensics, which is most likely what the appeal will come down to. At least we don't need to discuss ludicrous premeditated orgy/rape/murder games between strangers organized in some unspecified way at some unspecified time because two roommates argued over the cleaning any more! Phew, that was making me dizzy.

Hardly. One of the scenarios put forward by the prosecution was a sex game gone wrong. According to the report Meredith was murdered in...erm, a sex game gone wrong.

The report also made clear the prosecution case was overwhelming, without discrepancy and solid. Doesn't sound much like disagreement to me.

As for the mental gymnastics part...you'd know all about that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

LOL. The theory is that Raffaele told Amanda to always carry a kitchen knife in her purse?! That's very weak.

On that, I've not seen anyone disagree with you, it is weak. But the reason for it is the court felt sorry for them and didn't want to sentence them to life. Without that 'weak' explanation the court would only be able to conclude that Amanda and Raffaele had brought the knife deliberately to the cottage with malicious intent. So, if you love Amanda and Raffaele as much as you seem to, I'd be very grateful for that 'weak' explanation if I were you...otherwise they wouldn't be serving 25/26 years but LIFE.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How can a wiped laptop be linked to the crime?

Could not the credit cards be linked to the crime??? Far more!

Could not the phones be linked to the crime? Yes indeed, but still according to you he stole them.



Oh I see, he wasn't thinking rationally so he took the phones. But at the same time he was thinking rationally about the laptops. More intellectual double speak and cartwheels.

Well, it could be (if ever found). But it pretty much has to be in the physical possession of the Police to do so after the HD is wiped.

As opposed to a credit/debit card that is much more easily traced.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Both tests (luminol and TMB) may be at least an order of magnitude more sensitive than the values you quoted above:

A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques.

Webb JL, Creamer JI, Quickenden TI.
Luminescence. 2006 Jul-Aug;21(4):214-20.

1. You cannot use luminol on a murder weapon or potential murder weapon because luminol damages DNA.

2. Luminol is a presumptive blood test, so even if they had used luminol and it came up positive you people would be arguing that it isn't proven to be blood because it's only a presumptive test. One has to test further with a different test and that is not sensitive enough to detect blood at those low levels.

3. The court it would appear, has decided that it likely was blood on the knife.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why take the phones only to almost immediately throw them away? Why throw them in a garden instead of the ravine next to it, something Rudy well knew the location of being a long-term resident of Perugia? Why no micro-traces of blood on the phones?

I think either AK or RS took the phones, not Rudy. As you mentioned, there was no blood on the phones, and they were tossed rather randomly (yet near where RS lived). I think the reason for taking the phones was to stall in the finding of the body. If the phones could be heard ringing behind the locked door, suspicion of foul play would have occured earlier.

Also, only someone who knew Meredith would know she was using two different cell phones.

 

[Moss]

Am I imagining things or has Frank Sfarzo done a 180 degrees turn?
Especially given that his posting about the info Alessi allegedly got is very very sceptic.
Has someone hacked his blog account not admitted that yet?

 

[shuttlt]

1. You cannot use luminol on a murder weapon or potential murder weapon because luminol damages DNA.

I've seen conflicting reports on Luminol and DNA. The following for example:

The Luminol test is extremely sensitive, and is capable of detecting bloodstains dilutes up to 300,000 times. For this reason, spraying large areas such as carpets, walls, flooring, or the interior of a vehicle may reveal blood traces or patterns that would have gone unnoticed under normal lighting conditions. In addition, it will not interfere with any subsequent DNA testing that may be carried out in a forensic laboratory.

http://www.wavesignal.com/Forensics/Blood.html

2. Luminol is a presumptive blood test,

Not that you said it wasn't, but so is TMB. From what I gather almost all of the super sensitive blood tests are.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What do you mean "we suspect she pulled rape pranks once"? Didn't Fulcanelli say earlier that came from a comment section of some obscure article on the case? You're really allowing yourself a lot of leeway on what constitutes reliable evidence.

Actually, that's not 'all' I said. The individual indeed made a post stating this in the comments section of The Stranger. PMF (then known as Steve Huff's True Crime on haloscan) found the comment of interest and one of the PMF Admins personally contacted the poster and after several communications established that the poster became aware of it due to working with one of Amanda's housemates at the time. The housemate told him about it in some alarm, shortly after the 'prank' had happened.

Make of it what you will.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Am I imagining things or has Frank Sfarzo done a 180 degrees turn?
Especially given that his posting about the info Alessi allegedly got is very very sceptic.
Has someone hacked his blog account not admitted that yet?

Not really. He's actually quite good when in 'reporting mode', when simply reporting the straight facts from an event or report. It's when he writes opinion pieces or tries to be a journalist that he goes off the scale.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I've seen conflicting reports on Luminol and DNA. The following for example:

http://www.wavesignal.com/Forensics/Blood.html


Not that you said it wasn't, but so is TMB. From what I gather almost all of the super sensitive blood tests are.

It depends what you read. Many other articles will say it damages DNA and is therefore the last thing used on a crime scene, after DNA samples for example, have been taken. It may be that nowadays it is considered less damaging to DNA due to advances in DNA technology. However, would one want to risk damaging cells where you have so few, no more then 20, on a murder weapon when even as it is, without luminol, you have to turn off the machine's sensitivity limit just to get a viable profile? I wouldn't risk it. The priority has to be DNA...detect the DNA and that will link you to the individual it came from. Detect only blood and that will tell you nothing, especially on a kitchen knife that may of have been used to cut bloody meat/fish, or even from the user cutting themselves while prepping food for cooking. Unless you can link the blood to the person it came from, it's useless. There were only 20 cells (less than). They would have all been destroyed by testing them for DNA, leaving none to be tested for blood.

I think Dr Stefanoni chose the best option.

 

[shuttlt]

It depends what you read. Many other articles will say it damages DNA and is therefore the last thing used on a crime scene, after DNA samples for example, have been taken. It may be that nowadays it is considered less damaging to DNA due to advances in DNA technology. However, would one want to risk damaging cells where you have so few, no more then 20, on a murder weapon when even as it is, without luminol, you have to turn off the machine's sensitivity limit just to get a viable profile? I wouldn't risk it. The priority has to be DNA...detect the DNA and that will link you to the individual it came from. Detect only blood and that will tell you nothing, especially on a kitchen knife that may of have been used to cut bloody meat/fish, or even from the user cutting themselves while prepping food for cooking. Unless you can link the blood to the person it came from, it's useless. There were only 20 cells (less than). They would have all been destroyed by testing them for DNA, leaving none to be tested for blood.

I think Dr Stefanoni chose the best option.

Oh, I'm happy with your argument here... I'm just somewhat obsessed with the knife and all the claims about it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have no idea whether Mignini's account of the episode is correct or not. It seems it was accepted by the court of first instance.

Actually, not so. The first instance found Mignini innocent. Mignini was found guilty in the prosecution's appeal (although also found innocent of some charges). So, it's prosecution 1...Mignini 1. That says that it's pretty borderline. Mignini is now appealing and that can go either way. It'll likely go to acquittal for Mignini. Firstly because it's so borderline, secondly because there were clear political motivations in his guilty verdict and thirdly because there was a good deal of shock in Italy throughout the judiciary, indicating they didn't expect a guilty verdict.

But it must be understood, this isn't really a criminal trial, but a political one. Mignini ruffled feathers in the Narducci case and stood on the toes of some rather powerful and important people...worse, frightened those people. This is the backlash. But then it must be understood, this is the nature of being an Italian investigating magistrate...they play rough and face considerable danger. Few prosecutors in the US or UK have to have a 24 hour armed guard,..in Italy, it's the norm. Over the decades, no few investigating magistrates have been murdered in mafia hits. In the US/UK as a prosecutor, you sleep with your wife or husband's hand under your pillow...in Italy one sleeps with a beretta.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It isn't true. Perhaps less so in more mundane cases, but in the high profile ones opening and especially closing statements can approach theatrics by both the prosecution and the defense. No few lawyers specializing in criminal law have made their reputation as a result of their talent for drama.

Yes, but that's a different thing entirely and cannot be regarded as an authoritative conclusion. The prosecution will offer a detailed explanation, the defence will offer a detailed explanation, both of which are extremes and polarised. This too is done in Italy. However, the extra step in Italy is to bring the truth of the two narratives together (the goal in Italy being 'truth' rather then 'beyond reasonable doubt') into a single more accurate narrative, one that may not be the absolute truth, but is far closer to the truth then that of either of the two adversarial sides.

In the US/UK in common law it's different...as it says, it's adversarial between 'two' sides, and whichever side us judged to be closest to the truth is judged to be the absolute truth, even if it falls rather short of it. So, for example...the prosecution may argue that: First there was A, followed by B, followed C, followed D, followed by E, followed by F. The defence may argue, actually it was P, followed Q, followed by R, followed by S, followed T. followed by U. In essence, the jury then chooses which one they like best, and say they like the prosecutions best, they will say guilty and the judge will rule: A,B,C,D,E,F is the absolute truth...the jury picked a side and that side's whole is therefore true and it ends there.

The Italian system adds a further step, since the judges are also a dynamic and the ultimate one...they accept a side (yes, guilty....not guilty), but the truth they accept may instead go A,B,P,F,R...with maybe a couple more conclusions of their own not proposed by either side, adding X,Y,Z.

I don't know if I've explained it well or not, but it's difficult to explain to those used to only the common law system.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Actually, that's not 'all' I said. The individual indeed made a post stating this in the comments section of The Stranger. PMF (then known as Steve Huff's True Crime on haloscan) found the comment of interest and one of the PMF Admins personally contacted the poster and after several communications established that the poster became aware of it due to working with one of Amanda's housemates at the time. The housemate told him about it in some alarm, shortly after the 'prank' had happened.

Make of it what you will.

Exactly. Unreliable and useless.