Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Some different thoughts on the key situation.

Apparently we have no way of knowing whether or not there were spare keys, or more specifically a spare key kept by the door in this instance, but in response to your musings on the likelihood of such a circumstance I have to wonder if things are so different in the U.K. or Italy in that regard than they are here, because what you suggest is certainly not the situation in the U.S.

Starting with your item 3).

Acquiring a copy of a key is no big deal here. It will set you back a couple of dollars, and can be done at any hardware store, any big box DIY store, and more than a few WalMarts or Targets. Not to mention lock shops. I can think of half a dozen places I can get a key made in a matter of minutes within a two mile radius of where I am sitting.

This immediately reminded me of Walter Sobchak's "I can get you a toe by 3 O'Clock this afternoon - with nail polish" quote from TBL (Treehorn would know the scene)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_VAfVhsvOA

Speaking from my own experience, which encompasses a number of rental properties in a number of states over more than a few decades, generally a landlord will give a tenant one, or possibly two keys and if the tenant wants more they go out and get copies. The landlord usually doesn't give a rat's ass how many copies are made. They do make the return of all copies a condition of the lease, but that's about it. Particularly responsible or accommodating landlords will simply switch or re-key a lockset between tenants, although I don't know how universal this practice may be. It isn't expensive, especially compared to the headaches of tracking, replacing or issuing new keys. A cheap entry lockset costs about $30. A decent handyman can swap one out in less than fifteen minutes. With cigarette breaks. Many of the better ones are designed specifically so that the lock cylinder barrel can be removed and replaced with nothing more than a special change key designed for that purpose. It takes about a minute to do. When I was turning over finished buildings to an owner I would often have a handful of them in a drawer in my desk in the office trailer. Often times even if the landlord doesn't choose to change the lock the tenant may do so all on their own, and simply give a copy of the new key to the landlord. This is not the least bit uncommon, either.

Most landlords or their service people have a larger stock of old replacement door hardware than they really want, much less need. It's the kind of thing which tends to accumulate when you manage properties.

If landlords don't care how many copies are made, then how do they know if all copies get returned to them when the tenancy finishes? I strongly suspect that if landlords rent to a specific number of students (each of whom is essentially renting independently of each other), then the landlord supplies a front door key per student, and no more. I can categorically state that this was always the case when I was sharing a house as a student.

Regarding item 2).

Double deadbolt locks are a subject of much debate in the lock industry where residential entry doors are concerned. Their primary ostensible purpose is to prevent unauthorized entry by an intruder simply smashing a door lite or adjacent window and reaching in to turn a thumbturn. An alternative justification is that thieves will be discouraged from fleeing the the door with something which they couldn't remove through whatever other means of entry they used.

The problem with the second thought is that most things which are stolen can be gotten out the way the thief got in. Things that are too heavy or bulky are generally not stolen by a single thief, and the same logic applies. If they got in through a window, and they're stealing TVs or other bulky items they can generally find a window to hand big stuff out to an accomplice. Once in, the means of egress increase dramatically. The front door is not the only hole in the walls.

The security advantages are seriously offset by the safety disadvantages. If someone is woken by a fire and tries to flee, the obstacle presented by a locked double deadbolt can and has been the difference between life and death. Fire safety professionals hate double deadbolts on residential entry doors, and universally advise against them. When their advice to avoid them is to be disregarded the fallback advice is to insure that a spare key is kept close to the door in case of emergencies. (Or to use a system like a "captured key thumbturn", which I won't go into now.) Most of the people I know with double deadbolts do this.

In addition many residents don't want to be bothered by finding or fetching the keyring they left in the bedroom or their purse or their coat pocket every time they lock up for the night, and keep a spare key convenient near doors with these sorts of locksets. Remember, the cost of an extra key is less than most people spend on a morning coffee at Starbucks these days.

All of these conspire to make it much more likely than not that an extra key will be somewhere in close proximity to a double deadbolt lock on a residential entry door. If anything I'd be inclined to think that it would be even more likely in the case of the girls' apartment, since the disabled spring bolt and resulting need to lock the deadbolt merely to keep the door closed would mean that a key would be required simply to answer the door whenever there was any sort of caller.

I think we've already established that this house probably fell foul of several aspects of the building code. It's incontrovertible that the spring latch was wedged open, and there's been ample testimony that the door would not stay shut on its own without being locked (not to mention the fact that even if it was shut, a simple push would open it).

Most of the points you're making here are largely either refuted or irrelevant. Knox's testimony clearly implies that it was automatic for anyone coming in to open the door with their key, then to lock it again with their key once they were inside. There's therefore no such thing as "locking up for the night". And if one keeps a key on the inside for emergencies, then at a stroke this negates the security aspect of the double deadbolt arrangement - one might as well just install a thumb bolt on the inside instead. I can see some validity to the point about letting visitors in, but I think it's far more likely that if there was a knock on the door, one of the tenants would simply use her own key to let the visitor in. I certainly think that if there were a spare key kicking around, it would have been relevant to the case and would have been mentioned by now. To me, therefore, no prior mention = no spare key.

I realise that you're in the building industry and are keen to demonstrate your expertise in this area. But as you yourself know, this lock arrangement is pretty unsuitable for an exterior door in a private residential residence, with no turnable handle on the outside face - and the wedging of the spring latch makes it even more unsuitable and irregular. Therefore, "proper rules" don't apply here. All the indications are that the latch was deliberately wedged open (presumably by a tenant at some point) in order to prevent tenants from locking themselves out if they pulled the door shut without a key. And all the testimony supports the assertion that each tenant used her own key to lock and unlock the door, and that the door was kept permanently locked except for when someone was only expecting to be away for a very short period of time.

Item 1). It is just wrong to say,

"A "convenience key" could not be left in the interior door lock, since this would prevent a key being inserted from outside - in other words, this sort of arrangement would prevent anyone from being able to open the door from the outside with a key."
​

This is entirely dependent on the type of lock assembly itself, as well as the type of cylinder being used in that assembly. These are often (usually) interchangeable within a manufacturer's group of locksets. If you believe that all double deadbolt lock assemblies will not permit keys to function in both sides of the door simultaneously then you are simply mistaken. Without knowing the specific details of the specific lock assembly on that particular door it is quite impossible to make the statement you did with any foundation in authority.

I'm going to come to your defense in the "probability" aspect of this, though. Although in the U.S. it is quite common, probably even normal for double deadbolts to accept keys in both sides of the lock at once, my reading into European lock hardware during the last time the subject came around led to the discovery that a common "Euro" style of lock cylinder does not. I am not going to go through all of that reading again, but there is every likelihood that the lock assembly on that apartment door was using one such.

Note that it did not have to be, and we still have no way of knowing whether it did or not, but I would be unsurprised if it did. Not that it is at all germane to any other part of this question.

Why the heck do you start by saying "it's just wrong", then concede that it's likely? Again, I can see that you're demonstrating your expertise (with which I have no argument), but you and I both know that the cylinder in this lockset accepts keys from the inside and the outside into the same cylinder. Therefore, what I said - about a key insertion from the inside making it impossible to insert a key from the outside - is unequivocally correct in this particular case - which is the only case under discussion. Seems like you were just wanting to make an argument about general locksets for the sake of it, even when you knew I was correct about this specific lockset. Strange. Thanks for "coming to my defence" though

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on confirmatory blood tests

Analysis of body fluids for forensic purposes: From laboratory testing to non-destructive rapid confirmatory identification at a crime scene. Kelly Virkler, Igor K. Lednev, Department of Chemistry, University at Albany, SUNY, Forensic Science International 188 (2009) 1–17.

This paper has a good discussion of presumptive and confirmatory tests for blood. It lists two kinds of presumptive tests, chemiluminescent and chemical.
Chemiluminescent: Luminol, Fluorescein, Bluestar
Chemical: Benzidine, Kastle-Meyer, O-toludine, TMB/Hemastix1, leucomalachite green (LMG)
TMB is a presumptive test, not a confirmatory one.

It also lists confirmatory tests, including crystal tests and immunological tests.
Crystal tests: Teichman, Takayama
Immunological: ELISA, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)

The crystal tests work by forming crystals of heme or a derivative of heme. The immunological assays use antibodies that recognize hemoglobin or the isozymes of lactate dehydrogenase.

I have conversed with one of the authors to clarify a few points. TMB can produce false negatives if the blood is too dilute or in the presence of acids or reducing compounds. Luminol can give false positives with Drano or plant matter, among other things. DNA profiling is not listed as a confirmatory test for blood because a positive result does not indicate what tissue produced the DNA. The review article above points out that different preparations of luminol interfere with DNA profiling to different degrees. I have previously quoted from a luminol review in the journal Talanta that implied the effect of applying luminol was only on how much DNA could be recovered and was not a serious concern in terms of developing a full profile.

Based on this paper and discussions I have had with persons of equal or greater knowledge, I would say that TMB or DNA testing are not the optimal follow-up tests for any of the luminol-positive areas found in this case. There was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. I think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else. The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.

Comodi asked for common sense when interpreting the luminol-positive stains. My common sense tells me to use a confirmatory test.

 

[LondonJohn]

Analysis of body fluids for forensic purposes: From laboratory testing to non-destructive rapid confirmatory identification at a crime scene. Kelly Virkler, Igor K. Lednev, Department of Chemistry, University at Albany, SUNY, Forensic Science International 188 (2009) 1–17.

This paper has a good discussion of presumptive and confirmatory tests for blood. It lists two kinds of presumptive tests, chemiluminescent and chemical.
Chemiluminescent: Luminol, Fluorescein, Bluestar
Chemical: Benzidine, Kastle-Meyer, O-toludine, TMB/Hemastix1, leucomalachite green (LMG)
TMB is a presumptive test, not a confirmatory one.

It also lists confirmatory tests, including crystal tests and immunological tests.
Crystal tests: Teichman, Takayama
Immunological: ELISA, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)

The crystal tests work by forming crystals of heme or a derivative of heme. The immunological assays use antibodies that recognize hemoglobin or the isozymes of lactate dehydrogenase.

I have conversed with one of the authors to clarify a few points. TMB can produce false negatives if the blood is too dilute or in the presence of acids or reducing compounds. Luminol can give false positives with Drano or plant matter, among other things. DNA profiling is not listed as a confirmatory test for blood because a positive result does not indicate what tissue produced the DNA. The review article above points out that different preparations of luminol interfere with DNA profiling to different degrees. I have previously quoted from a luminol review in the journal Talanta that implied the effect of applying luminol was only on how much DNA could be recovered and was not a serious concern in terms of developing a full profile.

Based on this paper and discussions I have had with persons of equal or greater knowledge, I would say that TMB or DNA testing are not the optimal follow-up tests for any of the luminol-positive areas found in this case. There was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. I think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else. The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.

Comodi asked for common sense when interpreting the luminol-positive stains. My common sense tells me to use a confirmatory test.

Absolutely. To my knowledge, the crystal and immunological tests are the ONLY confirmatory tests for blood. If blood were on the footprints, there should have been enough to be swabbed and subjected to one or other of these confirmatory tests. If the Luminol were applied properly, then there should still have been enough unoxidised iron for a positive ELISA. And even if all the free iron was used up by excessive application of Luminol, the LDH test should still have worked just fine (LDH is present in high quantities in red blood cells, and isn't one of the reagents in Luminol or TMB tests).

 

[Alt+F4]

I want life for the Knox family. My thumb is up!

Compared to the Kerchers, the Knox family is doing fine.

 

[LondonJohn]

Compared to the Kerchers, the Knox family is doing fine.

Can people stop making the rather unpleasant insinuation that those of us who believe that Knox and Sollecito may have been (or were) wrongly convicted are simultaneously indifferent to the suffering of Meredith Kercher and of her family? I find it deeply, deeply offensive that one "side" of the debate appears to think that it has claimed some sort of warped "ownership" of compassion towards the victim and her family. And, if anything, I find it even more offensive that many of these same people seem to equate any belief in Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt with a consequent lack of compassion for Meredith and the Kerchers.

I speak for myself, but I hope I'm representing many other people's feelings, when I say that Meredith's death was a horrible tragedy, and a senseless waste of a promising young life. And that her family have coped with the incredible pain of losing her - in such a horrific manner and at such an age - with amazing dignity and poise (although they must have gone through dreadful periods behind closed doors).

But, at the same time, I find it creepy and inappropriate for anyone who didn't know her to be "claiming" her in the way that some seem to be doing. And I most certainly believe that it's possible to mourn Meredith's loss (in a proportionate way for someone that most of us never knew or even met), while remarking upon the very different (and undoubtedly lesser) type of loss that Knox's and Sollecito's families have gone through. And this would be the case even if Knox and Sollecito actually did commit the crime; if it turns out that they didn't, then this loss will have been felt even more acutely.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
Comodi asked for common sense when interpreting the luminol-positive stains. My common sense tells me to use a confirmatory test.

Your report was interesting. But I just point out: Comodi di not "ask for common sense".
Maybe you interpreted her statements as a call for common sense. But it's your interpretation. She didn't explicitly ask for common sense in interpreting the result.

In my opinion the luminol prints can be assessed to be in blood with no doubt on logical grounds, from the analysis of their physical features.

 

[Alt+F4]

Can people stop making the rather unpleasant insinuation that those of us who believe that Knox and Sollecito may have been (or were) wrongly convicted are simultaneously indifferent to the suffering of Meredith Kercher and of her family? I find it deeply, deeply offensive that one "side" of the debate appears to think that it has claimed some sort of warped "ownership" of compassion towards the victim and her family. And, if anything, I find it even more offensive that many of these same people seem to equate any belief in Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt with a consequent lack of compassion for Meredith and the Kerchers.

Find it as offensive as you want to John. It's not about you. You don't even know what you are responding to. Read the previous page regarding heroic suicides and family pain.

 

[Antony]

Compared to the Kerchers, the Knox family is doing fine.

There is no way of comparing them. The Kercher family have suffered an appalling loss which cannot be restored, and have the sympathy of the world.

The Knox family have also been subjected to an appalling situation, which can be restored, but never completely. By contrast with the Kerchers, they are being subjected to vicious calumnies and gloating over their misfortune. They have been bankrupted by this case, and there is a powerful and vindictive enemy based in Italy who is determined to pile further privations upon them.

Both Amanda and Meredith are innocent victims of this case, and it is futile to make comparisons of their 2 situations. It's quite clear that if Amanda had been at home on her own that night, and if Meredith had been the first on the scene the next morning, then Amanda would be dead and Meredith would be in prison.

 

[LondonJohn]

Find it as offensive as you want to John. It's not about you. You don't even know what you are responding to. Read the previous page.

I know full well what was discussed on the previous page, and for the record I disagreed with Justinian's comments there. But your post was a response to a totally different post of his. And yes, I will find it as offensive as I want. Thanks.

 

[quadraginta]

The lock on the cottage front door uses the europian standard replaceable cylinder. It's a major headache saver for landlords, tenants and simple homeowners. All locks made to this standard use the same interchangeable cylinder. This cylinder can be changed in a couple of minutes by the homeowner with a simple screwdriver. I would expect to find in any europian town with many landlords an exchange where cylinder and key sets can be swapped for a modest fee. If I were a landlord or locksmith in the US I would try to create such an exchange.

In a way, locksmiths tend to serve that function to some degree anyhow. Landlords or managers with more than a handful of properties usually accumulate a pretty substantial stock of whatever sort of locksets are standard for their properties, and thus develop a pool of replacements to swap around in much the fashion you describe, at least between the units they maintain.

Rather than keeping a spare key by the door, the double cylinder could be swapped out for a single cylinder with a thumb turn on the inside. I agree with you that it seems incredibly dangerous to require a key to get out of a building. Perhaps a previous tenant was paranoid and the girls didn't know any better.

Double deadbolt locksets are all too common in the U.S. The victory of fear over good sense. Paranoia is rampant, and expert advice rarely heeded.

Given that we have already identified the make and model of this lockset, it's safe to state that it does use a standard eurolock cylinder.

I suspected as much, but my experience with American manufacturers has taught me that so many permutations are possible on any given lockset, especially as they climb the cost ladder, that it is unwise to speak with any certainty about any particular lock. Knowing what type of cylinder was probably on that lockset isn't the same as knowing what was certainly on it.

I once sat in on a meeting discussing the keying schedule for a retirement community I was building. During it the door hardware supplier told the maintenance manager that it would not be possible to generate a great-great-grand master key for the lock type being used because the number of pins in the cylinder would not permit it. Some time later, when this same manager (who was something of a locksmith himself) learned that the type of construction master system being used abandoned a pin after the construction key was locked out, he took advantage of that to design and implement a great-great-grand master system himself.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vogt on Commodi's version of common sense

Your report was interesting. But I just point out: Comodi di not "ask for common sense".
Maybe you interpreted her statements as a call for common sense. But it's your interpretation. She didn't explicitly ask for common sense in interpreting the result.

In my opinion the luminol prints can be assessed to be in blood with no doubt on logical grounds, from the analysis of their physical features.

Andrea Vogt wrote, “Co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi did address evidence in her morning summation, mostly by criticizing defense consultants' use of ‘shell games’ to distort and discredit the forensic evidence presented in the case. She defended the work of police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and other police forensic investigators and appealed to jurors to use common sense when considering the reliability of defense consultants' testimony.
‘At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor,’ Comodi said. ‘and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide.’”

It is possible that the term "common sense" is Ms. Vogt's summary, as opposed to Ms. Comodi's actual words. I don’t see any logical reason to skip the confirmatory tests, yet to conclude that blood is present. Perhaps you could indicate when they are, or are not needed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your report was interesting. But I just point out: Comodi di not "ask for common sense".
Maybe you interpreted her statements as a call for common sense. But it's your interpretation. She didn't explicitly ask for common sense in interpreting the result.

In my opinion the luminol prints can be assessed to be in blood with no doubt on logical grounds, from the analysis of their physical features.

That last sentence is extraordinary. I wish you'd been able to say that in court. "From the analysis of their physical features", you are in no doubt that the prints were made in blood? Care to......erm....elaborate?

 

[Alt+F4]

There is no way of comparing them.

Wrong, there is a great, big way of comparing them. The Kercher family will never see their daughter/sister again. The Knox family has the hope that Amanda will be free one day. Get back to me when Meredith can be freed from her murder.

Both Amanda and Meredith are innocent victims of this case

Wow, you have NO idea what the difference is between being dead and being in prison.[/quote]

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmm. I wonder how many different people in Perugia lived within 1min15 walking distance of Sollecito's front door? I wonder how many of them he knew? I wonder how many of the people who lived in the building NEXT DOOR he knew?

To suggest that Sollecito and Guede MUST have known each other because they lived within 1min15 of each other, and probably used the same road (Corso Garibaldi) a couple of times per day* is patently ridiculous, and demonstrative (once again) of high levels of confirmation bias.

* And almost certainly at pretty differing times, especially during daylight hours - Sollecito was studying a regular uni course, while Guede was out or work.

 

[Kaosium]

Wrong, there is a great, big way of comparing them. The Kercher family will never see their daughter/sister again. The Knox family has the hope that Amanda will be free one day. Get back to me when Meredith can be freed from her murder.

Dead is dead, there's no coming back from that, so I'm with you so far in this respect.

Wow, you have NO idea what the difference is between being dead and being in prison.

Death is a part of life, a natural one, one everyone faces. I think perhaps you've not put yourself in the shoes of someone who saw their sister/daughter/friend go overseas and be smeared world-wide as an infamous sex-crazed murderess. To be bankrupted defending them, to be subject to ridicule from some, and for most around them to know they are the relatives of someone convicted of a heinous murder. To wake up every day wondering if their loved one will ever be set free, a process that will take years.

I imagine it is probably a stressful and painful existence at the very least.

 

[Malkmus]

Alt,

While I hate that we've now reopened this can of worms, since it just leads to bickering... I do have to point out that this is exactly what LondonJohn is referring to. Anotny did say:

The Kercher family have suffered an appalling loss which cannot be restored

But as soon as he states that Amanda is also a victim -

Both Amanda and Meredith are innocent victims of this case

You say this:

Wow, you have NO idea what the difference is between being dead and being in prison.

It seems to be a running notion on the pro-guilt side that the victimization of Amanda is tantamount to disrespecting Meredith. There's only one person on this thread who has actually expressed this view and his views have not been agreed with by anyone, on either side.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Has the Muppet Show begun airing again?

I have recently read an interesting post on another forum which has given me food for thought indeed. I have been wondering all day whether (setting obvious delusions of grandeur aside) either of the stated aims/objectives would actually be feasible for a junior clerk in a Solicitor's office? Even for a 'professional' defence counsel for that matter?

In such a high-profile case, would anyone truly take these words seriously for more than 3 seconds before falling down and rolling about on the floor in fits of laughter? Is it just me that cannot comprehend the mindset of the person who would write:

''...But what I'm going to pledge to do now is the two main jobs I consider I need to do:

i) I'm going to take down Steve Moore
ii) I'm going to try to persuade Rudy to tell the truth

There's no dishonour in trying and failing. There's only dishonour in not trying. I'm going to give both my best shot. And when I try to make things happen, generally a lot of stuff goes off, whether I ultimately succeed or not, so I guarantee you I'll make it messy on both counts.

In the meantime, I'll post up everything I learned in Perugia. And then, with all of that, my job, as good as I can do it, will be done....''

 

[Malkmus]

I have recently read an interesting post on another forum:

ii) I'm going to try to persuade Rudy to tell the truth

All I could think when I read that was, Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

ii) I'm going to try to persuade Rudy to tell the truth

All I could think when I read that was, Be careful what you wish for.

Eeeeek!

I sincerely hope that no-one misconstrues that and thinks it was I stating that!!

 

[Malkmus]

Fixed!