Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

You are so good it is scary. That would be the one. Tile had a negative result which was significant but DNA was still present and sufficient for amplification in 17 of the 18 samples (3 samples on 6 surfaces).

LOL, well like I said it magically appeared when I typed it into the address bar. It looks like tile only tested negative with TMB after being cleaned with bleach, unless I'm misreading it in my somewhat sleep-deprived state (or misreading you in same). And we know these prints weren't cleaned with bleach, since otherwise they wouldn't have been there at all.

 

[RoseMontague]

Katy_did posted a link to a piece of video that doesn't address the Q.

Rose Montague and I discoursed on 'the kindness of strangers' on which I'm happy to to report we appear to be in agreement - I see no citation that addresses what AK said on the issue in Nov/Dec 07'.

And you have failed to answer the Q.

Opinions whether from me, you, Katy_did, Kevin Lowe, Rose Montague or whoever are all very well....... I don't mean to disparage anybody's opinion ......but they don't get to the root of the issue

What did AK say when faced with this Q 6 weeks after the 'waterboarding', in the presence of her lawyer and an interpreter and after sufficient time to gather her thoughts and clear her mind. ??????

The Q stands.

I could be clever and say that the jury are entitled to draw an inference from the refusal to respond.

Ah,
I believe it was Rhett B. that said if you have enough courage you don't need a reputation. Meaning, if you have a cite use it, you are new and your reputation can be repaired if your cite is flushed down the irrelevancy drain.

 

[Danceme]

And we know these prints weren't cleaned with bleach, since otherwise they wouldn't have been there at all.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Why else would all these tests use blood cleaned with bleach as part of the test for luminol sensitivity?

 

[katy_did]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Why else would all these tests use blood cleaned with bleach as part of the test for luminol sensitivity?

If you look at the study, there would probably just have been a general glow in the area if it had been cleaned with bleach, and no visible prints. It's not that the luminol wouldn't have reacted, but there most likely wouldn't have been any prints and if there were, they would've been very faint. Here's the relevant paragraph from the study:

Quadrant I (not washed): All surfaces had bright luminescent handprints. Quadrant II (washed with warm tap water): A luminescent pattern of parts of the handprint was detected on the bare wood, varnished wood and cement. All other surfaces had large bright luminescent areas, but no visible patterns. Quadrant III (washed with soap and warm tap water): All surfaces had large bright luminescent areas, but no visible patterns. To determine if this luminescence was due to a substance in the soap, an area of tile without any blood present was washed in the same manner and treated with luminol. No luminescent areas were present, indicating the soap was not interferring with the test. Quadrant IV: (washed with bleach): A very faint handprint was visible on the bare wood, varnished wood and horizontal sheetrock. Areas of faint luminescence were visible on the vertical sheetrock, tile and cement. Only the edges of the washed area on the carpet showed any luminescence.

I think the luminol prints in this case were more similar to those in Quadrant I of the study (not washed) than any of the others.

 

[Danceme]

I think the luminol prints in this case were more similar to those in Quadrant I of the study (not washed) than any of the others.

Yes, I agree, they do appear to look more like this. I guess that's why the jury believed they were just faint, diluted, blood and water prints.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pink color

The infamous picture of the small bathroom, all pink colored, has been said by some to be the end result of luminol spray and not indicative of where blood had been before cleaning; and it's also been said by others to be the result of testing by phenolphthalin and that it does indicate where blood had been. Which is true? Does spraying luminol leave a pink residue everywhere?

Phenolphthalein produces a pink color under certain conditions (it is an acid-base indicator among other things), but I am fairly sure that luminol does not. Without knowing more, I would make an educated guess that it was phenolphthalein. Dan_O posted on this a long time ago, IIRC.

 

[RoseMontague]

Phenolphthalein produces a pink color under certain conditions (it is an acid-base indicator among other things), but I am fairly sure that luminol does not. Without knowing more, I would make an educated guess that it was phenolphthalein. Dan_O posted on this a long time ago, IIRC.

I remember reading that the color was in reaction to protein, but cant recall the chemical used.

 

[Danceme]

Phenolphthalein produces a pink color under certain conditions (it is an acid-base indicator among other things), but I am fairly sure that luminol does not. Without knowing more, I would make an educated guess that it was phenolphthalein. Dan_O posted on this a long time ago, IIRC.

So did the pink color represent a reaction of phenolphthalein with something or was it the chemical itself we are seeing? If it was the reaction we were seeing what can it react with other than blood?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So did the pink color represent a reaction of phenolphthalein with something or was it the chemical itself we are seeing? If it was the reaction we were seeing what can it react with other than blood?

Anything alkaline will make phenolpthalein turn pink, it's what's called an indicator. Soap is alkaline, and often found in bathrooms.

 

[platonov]

OK at the 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, 5th ) time of asking ...
the issue of the ' coerced - internalized false confession' has finally been put to bed.

So, what's next .....


However , in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out the jury has formed an opinion/drawn an inference with respect to the previous issue so further submissions may be greeted with skepticism ( in the best traditions of JREF).
We jurists may be a simple lot but obfuscation/insult/refusal to answer a simple Q creates a bad impression.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

December 17th court appearance

OK at the 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, 5th ) time of asking ...
the issue of the ' coerced - internalized false confession' has finally been put to bed.

So, what's next .....


However , in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out the jury has formed an opinion/drawn an inference with respect to the previous issue so further submissions may be greeted with skepticism ( in the best traditions of JREF).
We jurists may be a simple lot but obfuscation/insult/refusal to answer a simple Q creates a bad impression.

Platonov,

Amanda appeared on court on the 30th of November and again on the 17th of December. From one of your comments, I surmise that you want to focus on this latter appearance. I quote Candace Dempsey, Murder in Italy, page 238. "Nobody was listening, she said later; it was more of the same, the yelling, the repeating of questions, the disbelief--more of which she'd gone through during the undocumented hours of November 2007."

So the December 17th questioning was similar to the interrogation at the police station. Having read and thought about this, I think that Amanda's interrogation produced a false confession even more strongly than I did before.

I think it is time that you showed your cards on this Q of yours.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kastle-Meyer test

I remember reading that the color was in reaction to protein, but cant recall the chemical used.

Phenolphthalein is also used in he Kastle-Meyer test. This presumptive test for blood also utilizes the pseudperoxidase activity of hemoglobin, as do the TMB and luminol tests. What I am not sure of is exactly why it was used in the bathroom. Does anyone have a good citation?

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

Amanda appeared on court on the 30th of November and again on the 17th of December. From one of your comments, I surmise that you want to focus on this latter appearance. I quote Candace Dempsey, Murder in Italy, page 238. "Nobody was listening, she said later; it was more of the same, the yelling, the repeating of questions, the disbelief--more of which she'd gone through during the undocumented hours of November 2007."

So the December 17th questioning was similar to the interrogation at the police station. Having read and thought about this, I think that Amanda's interrogation produced a false confession even more strongly than I did before.

I think it is time that you showed your cards on this Q of yours.

OK ......at this stage an old fashioned jury would be measuring your client up for a rope or a box.

What C Dempsey* or you or me or London John or others have opined on this issue...is not relevant.

What did AK have to say - the question could hardly be simpler.

* in deference to the literary allusions of other posters Lear comes to mind ......'he reads but cannot speak Spanish'..... in this case your authority appears to neither read nor speak Italian nor to have been present at the hearings.

As regards cards I have asked a simple question ( often enough to fall foul of the mods for spamming) but to no avail.
If we were playing cards we would be arguing over the price of shirt and shoes at this stage.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OK ......at this stage an old fashioned jury would be measuring your client up for a rope or a box.

What C Dempsey* or you or me or London John or others have opined on this issue...is not relevant.

What did AK have to say - the question could hardly be simpler.

* in deference to the literary allusions of other posters Lear comes to mind ......'he reads but cannot speak Spanish'..... in this case your authority appears to neither read nor speak Italian nor to have been present at the hearings.

As regards cards I have asked a simple question ( often enough to fall foul of the mods for spamming) but to no avail.
If we were playing cards I would be selling you your shirt and shoes at this stage.

Having read your posts again I still have no idea what facts you are attempting to claim are true, nor what conclusion you are attempting to draw from those facts.

It might help if you state your point in simple declarative sentences: I believe X to be the case, because of source Y, and I conclude from this Z. If you do have a point, you should be able to express it this way without difficulty.

 

[Fine]

I was reading some of Dr. Waterburys older posts earlier and saw this about the bra clasp. I will bold what I found to be an appropriate comment about the real value of this piece of evidence.


Quote:
Control experiments to check for this would have been simple. The clasp was retrieved from a pile of debris left by the fastidious investigators in Meredith's room, shown in the picture at the right. Testing a few other items from that pile to see if they, too, had picked up DNA dust from the floor would tell us whether there was anything special about the clasp. Of course, that wasn't done.
So we have “Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp,” rather than, “Raffaele's DNA, along with DNA from lots of other people, was found at various random locations throughout Amanda's apartment, which he visited several times before the murder.” The first phrase sounds incriminating. The second, accurate phrase, shows how meaningless this test result is without a control experiment.


http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/methods-of-polizia-pseudoscientificaa.html

_____________________

Rose,

Waterbury is---as usual---wrong. Found next to the bra clasp, and collected the same day, was one of Meredith's socks. Interesting, that Raffaele's DNA was not found on the sock, but Merdith's DNA was not found either! But she had been wearing that sock the night of the murder, suggesting that DNA is not so easily deposited.

///

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Rose,

Waterbury is---as usual---wrong. Found next to the bra clasp, and collected the same day, was one of Meredith's socks. Interesting, that Raffaele's DNA was not found on the sock, but Merdith's DNA was not found either! But she had been wearing that sock the night of the murder, suggesting that DNA is not so easily deposited.

That's a bit like saying "They said he'd never read a book in his life, but they were wrong! He read one!".

 

[Brooktrout]

We also have Rudy's word in his spontaneous statement to the court at his appeal last November that Amanda Knox was present at the time and place of Meredith Kercher's murder.

Even the prosecutor dismissed that story as nonsense. What it underlines, however, is the role media narratives and slow leaks of information were beginning to play in these judicial proceedings.

 

[Fine]

That's a bit like saying "They said he'd never read a book in his life, but they were wrong! He read one!".

Nope. Not one book but many books. All the articles on the floor of Meredith's bedroom--- items also exposed to the dust on the floor--- which were tested for DNA constitute "control experiments," as Waterbury is using the expression. Waterbury was not only ignorant of the sock being found next to the bra clasp...he just wasn't thinking clearly.

///

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

OK ......at this stage an old fashioned jury would be measuring your client up for a rope or a box.

What C Dempsey* or you or me or London John or others have opined on this issue...is not relevant.

What did AK have to say - the question could hardly be simpler.

* in deference to the literary allusions of other posters Lear comes to mind ......'he reads but cannot speak Spanish'..... in this case your authority appears to neither read nor speak Italian nor to have been present at the hearings.

As regards cards I have asked a simple question ( often enough to fall foul of the mods for spamming) but to no avail.
If we were playing cards we would be arguing over the price of shirt and shoes at this stage.

I can provide you a link
http://wildgreta.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/sei-ore-di-interrogatorio-per-amanda-knox-che-crolla/

I give you a translation of the first and last paragraph - and you can see it is a bit different to CD.

Pianti, urla, contraddizioni e poi solo silenzi. Dopo sei ore di interrogatorio nel carcere di Capanne, Amanda Knox crolla: quando le chiedono perche’ ha chiamato in causa Patrick Lumumba e, soprattutto, quando il pm Giuliano Mignini la invita a spiegare come faceva a sapere particolari della posizione del corpo di Meredith Kercher che, secondo gli inquirenti, solo chi era nella casa di via della Pergola la notte del 1 novembre poteva sapere.
Tears, yells, contradictions – and then just silence. After 6 hours of interrogation in Capanne prison Amanda Knox breaks down: when questioned why she accused Patrick Lumumba, and furthermore when PM Giuliano Mignini asked her to explain how she was able to know specifics about the positions of the body of Meredith Kercher, which could only be known by a person who was present at the house in Via della Pergola in the night of 1st november.

Gia’ in difficolta’, l’americana e’ crollata definitivamente davanti alla domanda su Patrick: “perche’ lo ha chiamato in causa?”. Non ha risposto, ha titubato un istante, poi ha iniziato a gridare ripetendo le stesse frasi scritte anche nel memoriale prima di andare in carcere (“vedo i flash, vedo i flash”) ed e’ scoppiata a piangere. “Ha avuto lo stesso identico atteggiamento tenuto in questura quando e’ stata fermata” dice chi ha assistito alla scena. “Ha fornito una piena collaborazione” dicono fiduciosi i suoi legali, secondo cui le posizioni sono “rimaste sostanzialmente invariate: Amanda continua a proclamare la sua innocenza mentre la procura la ritiene coinvolta nell’omicidio”. Ma quelle lacrime sono destinate a pesare
Already in difficulties, the American definitively broke down under the question about Patrick: „Why did you accuse him?“ She did not answer, hesitated for a moment and then started to yell repeating the same phrases (written also in her memorial before she was sent to prison) – „I see the flash! I see the flash“ – and broke in tears. –‚She did exactly the same in the Questura‘ told someone who was assisting at the scene. „She has given a full collaboration“ commented faithfully her lawyers. According to them the positions have not been changed. Amanda continues to declare her innocence whilst the prosecution still claims her complicity of the murder.

I have soon finished the rest of the translation.

 

[katy_did]

Nope. Not one book but many books. All the articles on the floor of Meredith's bedroom--- items also exposed to the dust on the floor--- which were tested for DNA constitute "control experiments," as Waterbury is using the expression. Waterbury was not only ignorant of the sock being found next to the bra clasp...he just wasn't thinking clearly.

///

Mark Waterbury is talking specifically about testing things from the 'pile of debris' in which the bra clasp was found when it was finally collected. The sock wasn't found in that pile of debris, was it? If it was, did they test anything else from that pile? They should have tested objects (plural) found with the sock not for investigative reasons, but as a control test. Unfortunately, like negative controls on the knife, they didn't do it (AKAIK, anyway). You might as well say they don't need to carry out control tests at all as long as they test more than one object from the scene.

Also, doesn't Massei say the reason Meredith's DNA wasn't found on the sock was because they only tested a couple of places on it, while her DNA was probably on other parts of it?