Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

Did you have a look at the picture of the door I posted earlier? There appear to be grooves at top and bottom of the door frame, presumably for some kind of roller mechanism. At least, so Dan O suggested when I discussed this with him a while back, and he knows more about it than I do.

There seems to be some sort of folding security grate (similar to what might be found on a downtown storefront) stored to the left side of the door. I have not picked out any sort of roller mechanism which is related to the hardware installed in the door leaf.

Also I think interpreting Guede's failure to lock the front door (which is hardly unlikely or implausible) as yet more evidence against Knox and Sollecito is exactly what's wrong with a lot of people's approach to the case. It would be equally possible to interpret Guede locking the door as evidence of their guilt, too.

I can already hear the arguments. And actually those arguments might be slightly more valid, since I can well imagine that Knox might forget that a supposed burglar wouldn't know the front door was broken, and that only a resident would realize the need to lock it. That's exactly the kind of minor mistake someone faking the entry of a stranger intruder might actually make.

I wouldn't make such an argument. If both doors had been locked, or if neither door had been locked there would be no inconsistency. I have in the past been willing to accept the possibility that the state of the door lock would have passed unnoticed by a burglar. I am less willing now.

I have not been the one to focus on this inconsistency in these discussions until the photos of the lock assembly were shared. Many Knox advocates have, though, making a point to stress the fact of that lock mechanism being "broken" as a way to dismiss the question. Before I saw those photos I was rather puzzled at the weight given to the issue by Knox advocates. Having seen them I can understand their concern.

 

[Fiona]

Since this thread is now moderated again, and since LJ has chosen to misprepresent a post I made elsewhere, I decided to reproduce the two posts I made about this matter. I am grateful to odeed for finding other evidence which supports my tentative conclusions

http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey ... covery.pdf

This is an interesting article. It is a study specifically designed to test the effects of fire on detection of blood through presumptive tests for it:and on the possibilities of recovery of dna in those circumstances. But for the purposes of this case and some of the things which have been claimed it has a couple of interesting things to say

In particular it is claimed that the test for blood is more sensitive than that for dna and that it is therefore impossible for dna to survive cleaning if blood does not. This has been a major plank of the argument against the knife as the murder weapon, and for the dna discovered on it being the result of contamination.

The study notes that many laboratories insist on a postive test for blood before they will go on to test for dna. The authors specifically addressed whether this is a good idea, and it is the only study I have found so far which directly looks at this proposition.

In the laboratory setting, many biologists are required to obtain a positive blood screening test result prior to proceeding with DNA analysis, regardless of the blood screening results obtained by the crime scene investigators. Accordingly, the combined phenolphthalein (P) ⁄ tetramethyl benzidine (TMB) presumptive test for blood (10) was conducted in the laboratory immediately prior to the placement of samples in tubes for DNA processing. DNA testing was conducted on all samples, even those with negative or inconclusive presumptive blood screening results. This allowed
exploration of the reliance on positive blood screening results as a mandatory requirement in the laboratory prior to proceeding with DNA analysis, specifically, if reliance on a positive blood screening result prior to DNA analysis would result in failure to process samples that ultimately yielded a quality DNA testing result.

<snip>

Screening of samples with the P⁄TMB method was conducted at the laboratory prior to DNA testing on a total of 94 samples (Table 2). Of the 64 of these samples that yielded full DNA profiles,55 samples (86%) tested positive with P⁄TMB, eight samples (12.5%) tested negative, and one sample (1.5%) yielded an inconclusive testing result.

<snip>

Based on the P⁄TMB findings, it is necessary to provide a caution for laboratories requiring a positive chemical screening test result for the presence of blood prior to initiating DNA testing. As shown by the shaded area of Table 2, this approach is likely to result in the failure to process samples that can clearly yield DNA profiles suitable for comparison purposes. While it is noted that for the most part, samples with full DNA profiles also had positive P⁄TMB results, c. 11% of samples that did not yield a positive P⁄TMB testing result did yield DNA profiles suitable for comparison purposes.

The authors are careful to limit their recommendations to fire scenes, since that is what they were testing. It is certainly likely that the effects of heat on blood may render the presumptive tests less reliable and there may be other studies which support the claim that one cannot render a surface free of blood detectable to tmb, which yet yields dna. I will continue to dig about, and if anyone else is interested do please help me

Nevertheless this study finds that it is possible in these circumstances to obtain dna where presumtive tests for blood are negative, and it has been positively asserted by some in this debate that that cannot happen. Nor is this obviously limited to the effects of fire because those samples closest to the source of the fire (and therefore presumably taken to the highest temperatures) did not yield dna profiles.

Accordingly, for fire scenes, the use of a chemical screening test for the presence of blood as a tool to eliminate samples to be subjected to DNA testing is not recommended. For those scenes where the most probative samples are likely to be closest to the fuel source, it is advised that DNA testing be conducted on these samples in an attempt to obtain a DNA profile even if the chemical screening test for blood is negative or inconclusive

That is the post which LJ referred to. As you can see I was careful to note that the study was done at a fire scene and that I had not yet found a study which investigated this more generally

My second post is a response to a poster at PMF who commented on the first: the comment addressed a rather different issue and so some of what is contained in it is not directly relevant here. I quote it in its entirety so I may avoid slanting what I actually said.

No I don't think it is general in the way you seem to imply, Michael. This was a study specifically devoted to fire scenes and so that is what the authors talk about in their conclusions. That is quite proper. In fact I think this study, published in 2009, is doing exactly what you say. It examines the established protocol (limiting dna testing to samples which have reacted with a presumptive test) to see if the assumptions underlying that protocol are justified. In the case of fire scenes they are not: dna was found on a fairly high number of samples where the presumptive test failed.

What this means is that there are circumstances where all traces of blood detectable by the presumptive tests have been "cleaned" in some way: possibly, but not certainly, by heat. Yet in 11% of those samples DNA was collected and yielded a full profile.

It is absolutely true that decisions have to be made about how to test and what to test for. Those decisions have to be made on the basis of what is known and understood about the various tests and their effects on other possible tests. And so there is quite a lot of work done on, for example, whether presumptive tests affect any dna that is present. If a given test does not affect the ability to obtain dna after it is done it is obviously preferable to a test which does, all else being equal.

I am not disputing in any way your contention that LCN testing cannot say what type of dna is present. That is not the issue here. I am disputing the positive assertion that if tmb testing does not disclose the presence of blood on an item then there cannot be any dna, because whatever cleaned that item would destroy the dna before it destroyed the blood. That has been repeated like a mantra and it is taken as uncontested. And perhaps in circumstances where there is no fire that remains true: but it is NOT true where there is a fire. And that is interesting in light of the claim.

LondonJohn says it is irrelevant because it only applies in fire scenes but I do not think that is shown. It is not clear that this is an effect which is limited to fire scenes, though a fire scene is where it has been demonstrated. The established protocal in fire scenes was the same as for all other scenes: test for blood and do not test for dna where blood is not discovered. This study overturns that protocol for fires scenes. That does not mean that the same finding will not hold for non-fire scenes: only that the study does not address that. I am hoping to find other work which tests that finding in non-fire scenes.

At present this study seems to me to cast some doubt on the "truth" of the established protocol. I think the protocol may be based on the need for efficiency, and for the most part it holds. So that is fair enough. Decisions about what and how to test do need to be made, and this is a generally good way of avoiding wasted effort, where there is plenty of samples: you cannot test everything, as we all agree, and in most cases you are more likely to find dna if there is the presumption or confirmation of blood. But in 11% of cases here it does not hold. For me, absent some actual study which shows that what is true in fire scenes is definitely not true where there is no fire, this in itself casts doubt on the claim that there is no "magic cleaning" technique which can remove all trace of blood, yet leave some dna. We now know that something at a fire scene can do that and it is not demonstrated that it is the fire itself. Sometimes such work overturns established wisdom; and it has in this case with respect to fire scenes: I do not yet know if the finding is more generally applicable, but the fact that it flies in the face of the established wisdom does not show that it is not. And that is what is wrong with LJ's dishonest post at JREF: he has not addressed the implications of the study but merely waved it away.

Odeed has now found further evidence that this finding is applicable to scenes where there is no fire. I think this is interesting and that it needs to be taken into account.

 

[quadraginta]

But:

1) What makes you confident that the key would also operate the spring latch? It doesn't look that way to me - they look like totally independently-operated entities.

It doesn't look that way to me. To me it looks like a mortise lockset. It is quite common for mortise locksets to function in such a fashion as to operate both a deadbolt and a springbolt with the action of a key cylinder. It is, in fact, one of the reasons for choosing a mortise lockset in preference to a combination of separate orb locksets.

I have taken apart many mortise locksets. Not just Corbins (the brand in the Knox apt. door) but Yale, Schlage, Kwikset, Hager, ... etc. I have rearranged the little 'fiddly bits' inside them which are commonly provided to engage or disengage such a feature. I see nothing unusual or unlikely about the configuration as I have described it. Only that it is, as I have pointed out, not well considered in this application.

What does seem unlikely is an installation which would require the presence of an occupant at all times when working as intended.

2) The girls in the house complained (and were worried) that the door would not stay shut when closed, unless it was locked with the key. With that in mind, don't you think that they would have looked at the spring latch, and would have quickly seen (as we all did from the photos) that the latch could easily be re-enabled by removing the obstruction. If, as you suggest, the latch could be operated by the key from the outside face, it seems highly likely to me that the girls would re-activate the spring latch. This is because I think they would easily be prepared to trade off the risk of locking themselves out without a key for the security of having the door close securely via the latch. However, if their keys would not operate the spring latch in addition to the cylinder lock, then removing the obstruction to re-activate the spring latch would not be a viable option for the girls.

I think that your faith in the wisdom and levelheadedness of college age girls is quite touching. My experiences would lead me to think otherwise. There really isn't any way to know how long that door has been 'user modified'. I can easily envision a succession of tenants taking residence and leaving singly, and just accepting that the lock was "broken", because that's what they had been told by the people who were resident when they arrived. I can as easily envision them not wanting to bother the landlord to change the hardware configuration because "They always lock it when they're leaving."

My stepmother owned and managed several old houses as student housing near a large university. Most of her tenants were girls. The stories she would tell of the things those young women would and would not do were both riotous and baffling, and sometimes downright scary.

 

[LondonJohn]

I only saw it after I posted but I still do not think you understand the subject of the letter the two are discussing.


Inspector Pamela Hofsass, BA is using this case as an example, which resulted in a negative presumptive test, but she ignored this result and did the DNA test anyway, if she was to follow your advice she would not do the DNA test and vital evidence would be missed.

Hofsass goes on to say in the last paragraph of her letter:


Tracey Dawson Cruz, Ph.D even goes onto say, in earlier in the same paragraph I quoted from in the previous post:



Neither women is being specific to an arson scene, but are talking about all crime scenes in general, and that both quotes are the opposite of your assertion:

Hmm. I think I do understand what's being discussed in that letter, and how the reply to the letter gently but firmly puts the letter into its correct context (i.e. the letter has little or nothing to do with the actual study being reported in the academic paper). I had hoped not to have to go through the hassle of deconstructing the letter and its response, but here goes:

Pamela Hofsass states in her letter:

"While I especially appreciate the electropherograms that depict your DNA results even from "negative" ABAcard Hematrace samples, I object to the terminology you continue to use throughout the article - the tests performed out in the field and even in the confines of the crime lab are properly defined as presumptive tests. In other words, they are NOT confirmatory and should not be taken on face value as a true or false, black or white answer or result."

She's apparently saying here that tests (whether in the field or the lab) should be regarded as "presumptive", and that there's essentially no such thing as a "confirmatory" test.

In response to this point, the paper's co-author, Tracey Dawson Cruz, essentially says that Hofsass is wrong about "presumptive vs confirmatory" with regard to immunochromatographic tests, such as the Hematrace test whih is actually the sole subject of the academic paper she's written:

"With this said, it is important to note that tests which rely on microcrystalline (hematin, hemin, or hemochromagen) formation or those which utilize a monoclonal antibody to identify blood (rather than oxidative reactions discussed above) are considered more specific for the protein or fluid of interest (hemoglobin). In fact, those tests which rely on the reaction of a fluid-specific protein, such as blood hemoglobin, with a monoclonal antibody are not only considered fluid-specific but are also speciesspecific in that they will only react to human samples or samples from higher primates [5]. The blood tests used in this study were immunochromatographic tests (ABAcard HemaTrace) which are similar in that they rely upon the reaction of a monoclonal antibody with human hemoglobin. The only non-human/primate hemoglobin that is known to produce a positive reaction is from Mustela puterius fero, the domestic ferret [6]. No sources for false positive reactions have been reported in the published literature. There is an analogous seminal immunochromatographic test (ABAcard p30) that tests for human p30. Immunological identification of p30 is widely regarded as "proof positive" for semen in the absence of spermatozoa [1,7]. Thus, because of the high level of specificity that is granted with the use of monoclonal antibodies, these tests can be considered "confirmatory" as opposed to the presumptive tests mentioned above."

On the incongruous example which is then recounted by Hofsass (involving presumptive tests for semen in an arson-damaged crime scene), she seems to be trying to make the point that a negative in a presumptive test should not automatically mean no DNA positive in all crime scene scenarios. Cruz then responds to this particular point with a gentle put down:

"I am very pleased to hear of the arson case that Ms. Hofsass describes. This type of case highlights the point of our study very nicely- that case history and circumstances should be carefully considered before deciding to discontinue testing (including DNA analysis) based on either presumptive or confirmatory serological test results. This is clearly already the policy at the San Francisco Police Department Criminalistics laboratory. However, it is my understanding from several years of working with various state and local crime lab systems, that not all laboratories have such a policy or recommend such practices. Therefore, it is important to present this type of scientific evidence to the community to assure that forensic DNA analysts and crime scene investigators alike are aware of the need to incorporate all information from the crime before discontinuing their testing based exclusively on serological data."

Cruz is saying that, as Hofsass correctly pointed out, forensic analysts should absolutely consider "case history and circumstances" before deciding whether a negative first test (presumptive or confirmatory) is a fair indicator of no positive DNA. And Cruz agrees that in this particular instance, the factor of crime scene arson changes the rules. But Cruz falls short of stating the obvious, probably for reasons of professional politeness: the circumstances which Hofsass has described here - while important to note - have absolutely no relevance to the academic study under discussion.

Incidentally, the part in your post where you say "...if she was to follow your advice she would not do the DNA test and vital evidence would be missed" is misrepresenting my position completely. "My advice" would be to ignore standard protocol and to do DNA tests regardless of a negative presumptive blood test - if arson were a factor at the crime scene, which it was in this instance. The effect of fire and heat upon forensic samples has already been established as a special case where "normal rules don't apply".

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I am this far behind, slowly catching up on reading the thread.

I think it would be more honest then to not make a positive claim on this then, call it "your theory" or something.

WHO policies are not legally binding of course.

In the US, many institutions in which people will be confined in close quarters test for Tuberculosis, despite its relative rarity, not primarily because "in case [they] are sick and they want to treat [them]," but because unlike cancer, it is infectious. The CDC apparently made recommendations (I can't find the original document) that HIV testing be made a regular part of health testing in US prisons for that reason.

Regardless, it's hardly a compelling argument when you neither cite relevant Italian law or standard practice at the Perguia prison systems.


Wikipedia cites that screening tests run false positive rates of 15 in 1000, which is rare, but hardly "extremely" so.

I am unaware of claims that Knox was told she was positive after the second test (a false positive after the second test would I agree constitute 'extremely rare', btw).

Nadeau?

I thought she was considered an unreliable source by Knox supporters (Bruce, want to chime in here?)

I wholeheartedly agree with your principles here, but your arguments here fall far short of proof of your original statements.

HIV tests, by protocol, comprise two different types of test: ELISA and Western Blot. ELISA tests are easier and quicker to conduct, and as such are almost always the first of the two tests to be performed. They were specifically designed to provide very, very low levels of false negative: i.e. if a sample tests negative for HIV using ELISA, then the sample is almost beyond all doubt negative for HIV. Thus, ELISA is used as the standard screening test for blood products for transfusion etc.

However, the corollary to this is that ELISA shows a significant level of false positives. So, if an ELISA-tested sample tests positive, it doesn't necessarily mean that the sample is actually HIV positive. If an ELISA-tested sample shows positive, it's then subjected to a Western Blot test for confirmation. The Western Blot is a highly accurate test for HIV, with very low false negative and false positive outcomes. Extensive studies show that a combined test, for samples from general low-risk populations (i.e. not, for example, promiscuous gay males or intravenous drug users) throws up false positive rates of between just 0.0004% and 0.0007%.

So, only if a sample tests positive using both ELISA and Western Blot can it be properly assessed as HIV positive. And it is only at this point that a patient should be informed that he/she has tested HIV positive. The fact that Knox was apparently informed that she was HIV-positive based on a false positive is not only extremely medically negligent, it is also morally and ethically egregious.

 

[LondonJohn]

Regarding the appeal point about the bra clasp:

Any woman who claims that she regularly needs to touch the actual tiny metal/plastic hooks of the clasp when removing the bra is either extremely uncoordinated or lying.

Any woman (and any man who has any experience whatsoever of removing women's bras) will confirm that there is only one normal way to undo a rear bra clasp. And that way is to hold not the clasp itself, but the horizontal material either side of the clasp. The next step is to push these two pieces of material towards each other, which disengages the hooks and loops on the actual clasp. The two side parts can then be separated, and the bra removed. That is the way that these clasps are designed to be used. Bra designers know full well that people do not release the clasp by fiddling directly with the actual hooks and loops, and they design the material on either side accordingly, with reinforcement to make the material sufficiently stiff for the "grasp on either side and push together" method to work properly.

I can't personally believe that people are seriously proposing that it's a common method for people to come into direct contact with the components of the clasp when removing a bra. It's not.

 

[Fuji]

Burglars are frequently known to “take a dump” in homes they’ve broken in to.

It is not known to me. Could you please supply some corroboration for that assertion?

 

[Fuji]

Why might Guede's previous (alleged) experience of burglary greatly diminish any heightened sense of fear/anxiety during this break-and-enter? Do antelope which are being chased by lions experience any less fear on account of the herd having been chased by lions previously?

Lions and antelopes? You are really stretching things here.

Your analogy is a poor one. The heightened state of awareness a burglar would normally be expected to experience whilst carrying out his "duties" would be more analogous to the mindset of a predator, not prey.

At any rate, I would expect any burglar to evince a decreased emotional & physiological response to burglary situations as he conducts more and more break-ins and gains in practical experience. Like a soldier in combat, a pilot in flight, or a public speaker in front of a podium, the burglar becomes accustomed to the stressful setting of his chosen profession - the anxiety never disappears entirely, but it subsumes to manageable levels, or else the burglar wouldn't continue burgling (or the pilot flying, etc.).

 

[Kestrel]

There were lots of empty houses and apartments in Perugia, especially with many away for the holidays. So again, what made the cottage so special?


No, Filomena testified she certainly closed the shutters. We've already done this Kestrel and it's disingenuous to keep on saying she testified she didn't remember if she closed the shutters when she did not...read Massei AGAIN:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

The Micheli report conforms my claim:

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood.

Filomena believed she had closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. Even if she had, they did not close all the way and could not be latched.

This problem with the shutters would have been clearly visible to Rudy when he visited the cottage on earlier occasions.

 

[Kestrel]

The evidence that Amanda's false statement was the result of abuse was? Was she able to identify the person or persons who abused her? Her defense attornies presented how many witnesses that testified that they also had been abused by the Perugia police? Her defense attornies entered how many reports of abuse by the Perugia police into evidence?

Amanda said in court that she was hit bey a policewoman with long chestnut brown hair, but didn't know the her name. So yes, she was able to identify the person who hit her. The claims that she could not are simply lies.

The Italian system makes it almost impossible to prove police abuse. In Perugia, even making the allegation is dangerous.

Interrogations are not recorded, lawyers for the suspect are not present. Assuring that any allegation of abuse comes down to the word of the police against the word of a suspect. Any suspect that claims abuse can be charged with criminal defamation by the prosecutor. Amanda has been charged for simply saying she was hit. Others have been charged with slander for simply repeating Amanda's claim. Or for reporting that they have been abused by the same officers.

The police and prosecutors in Perugia know that if they abuse suspects, they will be protected by the Italian legal system.

 

[Kestrel]

Lions and antelopes? You are really stretching things here.

Your analogy is a poor one. The heightened state of awareness a burglar would normally be expected to experience whilst carrying out his "duties" would be more analogous to the mindset of a predator, not prey.

At any rate, I would expect any burglar to evince a decreased emotional & physiological response to burglary situations as he conducts more and more break-ins and gains in practical experience. Like a soldier in combat, a pilot in flight, or a public speaker in front of a podium, the burglar becomes accustomed to the stressful setting of his chosen profession - the anxiety never disappears entirely, but it subsumes to manageable levels, or else the burglar wouldn't continue burgling (or the pilot flying, etc.).

Rudy may just have needed to go, perhaps from eating a bad kebab earlier that day.

 

[Fuji]

This is not the first time there has been cross-forum drift between the JREF forums and other forums which cater to believers in non-mainstream theories, and if you are being less than completely honest about your familiarity with such other forums you would be far from the first to do so.

You wouldn't even be the first cross-forum poster to make claims about relevant personal expertise which turned out to be less than factual, if indeed your claims to personal expertise are not founded in fact.

So call it a view informed by my previous experiences.

You mean people sometimes LIE on the internet? I had no idea. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. And again, thanks for the warm welcome, even though I might just be a dissembler partial to "non-mainstream theories".

I think you are failing to grasp the point: No one person's opinion or experiences should ever be taken as authoritative, when properly collected scientific data is available as an alternative authority. I don't care if you tell us you've been in and out of the prison system for eighty years in fifty different countries, as well as having been a police officer, lawyer, judge and hit man. It doesn't matter.

And who decides if this evidence has been "properly" collected and interpreted?

We have scientific studies regarding the issue, which any rational person will take as trumping the opinions of an anonymous internet source with unverifiable claims to personal expertise.

Yes, scientific studies which can only ever show that a null hypothesis has been disproved withn a margin of statistical significance. All you have are probabilities.

So you agree then that there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not Amanda's statement accusing Lumumba and putting herself at the scene was a false statement elicited by sleep deprivation, physical abuse and sustained interrogation? That's fine then, we can add it to the pile of irrelevant, inconclusive "evidence" and move on.

No, I said there is a higher probability, perhaps. Even if so, higher probability is not equivalent to reasonable doubt. I am not Amanda's prosecutor and you are not her defense attorney. I agree with quadraginta:

Originally Posted by quadraginta

You still insist on trying to have it both ways. Suggestions of possible guilt judged by some caricature of courtroom standards, but suggestions of innocence open to any hypotheses of what might be "possible".

 

[LondonJohn]

Well....an interesting flurry of posts there.

1) I'm sorry if Fiona feels I've misrepresented her. I don't believe I did - and she could have posted on here at any time to argue against my post. I wonder why she did not do so, instead of complaining on a completely different forum? My representation was that her post showed levels of excitement about finding a specific situation where a negative presumptive blood test could be followed by a positive DNA test. I pointed out that this situation was specifically highlighted in the report that she was referring to as highly unique, and worthy therefore of a special exemption to the established protocols (i.e. negative presumptive blood test = no DNA test). It therefore inadvertently (to her) bolstered the argument that, outside of an arson crime scene, the normal protocol should be followed. I imagine that this report was instructive because so very few crime scenes requiring blood-spillage DNA identification also feature arson. However, a huge amount of crime scenes requiring blood DNA identification also feature some attempt at cleaning with bleach and other products. The established protocols clearly cover these well-documented and often-encountered areas.

2) Quadraginta: my point was that the girls only needed to look at the latch for around 2 seconds to discover a) why the latch didn't work, and b) what would most likely make it work again (removing the obstruction). I don't understand how one can reconcile the girls' documented anxiety and frustration with the front door situation with such an obvious "solution". Unless, of course, reactivating the spring latch wasn't actually a solution - if, for example, the key only operated the cylinder lock and not also the latch.

3) Fuji: my analogy is a good one. If you think that a domestic burglar experiences feelings more akin to a predator than prey, then ask a criminal psychologist for clarification. And just how many prior break-ins are you ascribing to Guede...?

PS In the UK, convictions are referred to legally as "safe" or "unsafe". I'm sorry if those terms are alien or strange to people from other countries, but they are the terms I know and use.

 

[LondonJohn]

Odeed has now found further evidence that this finding is applicable to scenes where there is no fire. I think this is interesting and that it needs to be taken into account.

Oh, I forgot this part. Odeed has not found this at all. Odeed has found a report which says that a negative test result for a specific immunochromatographic conclusive test for human blood - Hematrace - can sometimes be followed by a positive DNA test. It has nothing whatsoever to do with chromaluminescence presumptive tests for blood (TMB, luminol...).

Hematrace was not used in the Kercher case. Chromaluminescence presumptive blood tests were used, and they conform to the well-established and well-proven protocol: negative presumptive blood test = no DNA test. Unless the crime scene is fire-damaged. Which the Kercher crime scene was not.

And the letter from the forensic lab technician that he also linked to has no relevance either (see further up for a more expanded discussion of this).

 

[odeed]

Hmm. I think I do understand what's being discussed in that letter, and how the reply to the letter gently but firmly puts the letter into its correct context (i.e. the letter has little or nothing to do with the actual study being reported in the academic paper). I had hoped not to have to go through the hassle of deconstructing the letter and its response, but here goes:

...snipped for being irrelevant...

Incidentally, the part in your post where you say "...if she was to follow your advice she would not do the DNA test and vital evidence would be missed" is misrepresenting my position completely. "My advice" would be to ignore standard protocol and to do DNA tests regardless of a negative presumptive blood test - if arson were a factor at the crime scene, which it was in this instance. The effect of fire and heat upon forensic samples has already been established as a special case where "normal rules don't apply".

The letter has everything to with study, they are addressing conclusion of the study, and I repeat the quote from one of the authors of the study:

This type of case highlights the point of our study very nicely- that case history and circumstances should be carefully considered before deciding to discontinue testing (including DNA analysis) based on either presumptive or confirmatory serological test results.

I also cannot believe that any person would put more weight to a presumptive test, which is based on probability and can lead to both false positive and false negative results, to that of DNA test which in itself is a confirmatory test, unless they are being deliberately obstinate or just obtuse about the subject matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda said in court that she was hit bey a policewoman with long chestnut brown hair, but didn't know the her name. So yes, she was able to identify the person who hit her. The claims that she could not are simply lies.

The Italian system makes it almost impossible to prove police abuse. In Perugia, even making the allegation is dangerous.

Interrogations are not recorded, lawyers for the suspect are not present. Assuring that any allegation of abuse comes down to the word of the police against the word of a suspect. Any suspect that claims abuse can be charged with criminal defamation by the prosecutor. Amanda has been charged for simply saying she was hit. Others have been charged with slander for simply repeating Amanda's claim. Or for reporting that they have been abused by the same officers.

The police and prosecutors in Perugia know that if they abuse suspects, they will be protected by the Italian legal system.

I think this is a bit over-strong in its accusations of the police. I think that this will always be a "she said" vs "they said" element in the area of Knox's allegations. I also suspect that Knox might be exaggerating the extent o the abuse. But unfortunately for the police, they can't prove that Knox is lying. Because there is no evidence other than their own recollections (which most courts would take to be subject to extreme partiality in this instance). Because even though Knox was being interviewed in a designated interview room, in a modern police HQ, in a fairly large Italian town, in 2007, there appears to be no tape or video recording of the interview. Shame, that (for the police, and for Knox, and for justice).

 

[Danceme]

What is your theory as to how it got there?

Someone stepped in blood or water/blood mixture and then stepped on the barthmat,no doubt about it. But if it was Rudy as you claim and he did it to rinse his shoe before putting it back on and going back into Meredith's room to rifle through her purse then where are his shoeprints leading from this bathroom to her room Charlie?

Regarding the appeal point about the bra clasp:

Any woman who claims that she regularly needs to touch the actual tiny metal/plastic hooks of the clasp when removing the bra is either extremely uncoordinated or lying.
Any woman (and any man who has any experience whatsoever of removing women's bras) will confirm that there is only one normal way to undo a rear bra clasp. And that way is to hold not the clasp itself, but the horizontal material either side of the clasp. The next step is to push these two pieces of material towards each other, which disengages the hooks and loops on the actual clasp. The two side parts can then be separated, and the bra removed. That is the way that these clasps are designed to be used. Bra designers know full well that people do not release the clasp by fiddling directly with the actual hooks and loops, and they design the material on either side accordingly, with reinforcement to make the material sufficiently stiff for the "grasp on either side and push together" method to work properly.

I can't personally believe that people are seriously proposing that it's a common method for people to come into direct contact with the components of the clasp when removing a bra. It's not.

LJ, I suggest you actually try removing a bra before being so emphatic about how it's actually done because you are decidedly wrong.

First removing my own bra:
My hands reach behind my back facing upward. My left hand grasps the left side near the clasp, thumb under strap and fingers in front over loops, (mine is on the first set of loops leaving two sets exposed) while the thumb of my right hand pushes the clasp hook section toward and over the loop section. In so doing the tip of my middle finger pushes the underside edge of the clasp toward the thumb thus pushing the hooks out and through the loops (at this point the middle finger is firmly pressed on the hooks). This is necessary because of the tension the back strap is under.

Unclasping someone else's bra from behind: (my bra wrapped around a pillow)
Left side of backstrap to left of the clasp is grasped by left fingers sliding under strap with thumb in front, all pointing downward. Right fingers and thumb once again perform the grasping at the edge of the hook side of the clasp to push clasp toward and through the loops. This causes the thumb to have firm contact with the hooks during a movement designed to 'pick up' the clasp and push/pull the hooks through the loops on the opposite side.

To try and push two pieces of material together as you suggest, thinking the hooks will simply slide through the loops indicates a lack of experience with bra removal. This approach usually results in much fumbling and wasted effort with the wearer usually having to come to the rescue of such a hapless male, deftly removing it herself with the movements described above.

 

[Fiona]

1) I'm sorry if Fiona feels I've misrepresented her. I don't believe I did [

Well people can judge for themselves now, so that is ok


<snip>

My representation was that her post showed levels of excitement

Excitement? Well ok if that is how it strikes you...

about finding a specific situation where a negative presumptive blood test could be followed by a positive DNA test.

Yes that is what it showed

I pointed out that this situation was specifically highlighted in the report that she was referring to as highly unique, and worthy therefore of a special exemption to the established protocols (i.e. negative presumptive blood test = no DNA test). It therefore inadvertently (to her) bolstered the argument that, outside of an arson crime scene, the normal protocol should be followed. I imagine that this report was instructive because so very few crime scenes requiring blood-spillage DNA identification also feature arson. However, a huge amount of crime scenes requiring blood DNA identification also feature some attempt at cleaning with bleach and other products. The established protocols clearly cover these well-documented and often-encountered areas.

No, I dont think any of that is justified by the study quoted and I have said why. Matters not: folk can make up their own minds now

 

[Fiona]

http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey/Files/bloodpatternsandDNArecovery.pdf

Forgot to post the link: the one in my original post is indeed broken

 

[Fuji]

Rudy may just have needed to go, perhaps from eating a bad kebab earlier that day.

Maybe, but I think that is quite unlikely.

I am somewhat mystified why so many people either implicitly or explicitly maintain that taking a bathroom break while in the midst of committing a burglary is a routine occurrence.

If you really think your average burglar is going to take a bathroom break while:

- alone, without a lookout
- in an interior room with no ready access to the street
- in a house where he is known to most of the occupants

then I think you are sorely mistaken.

It greatly helps to understand the dynamics of the situation if you actually try and think like a real burglar would.