• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't know other cases, why do you suggest comparison with other cases? You quote foreign papers like the Times of India mentioning a child molester or a Nazi criminal convict, but seems you miss completely thousands of ordinary cases.
You also have no problem in suggesting a new standard to keep Rudy Guede in prison: a "stable family base" is no legal requirement for house arrest in any code, yet you make it up for Rudy Guede.
Then, again you complain about things that are just law and standard. Are other inmates given electronic bracelets while in cautional custody? No. So why should Amanda receive this kind of privilege?
The law says people with serious evidence against them remain in custody. The law could be wrong, but it is applied to thousands of people. Sure Sabrina Misseri would prefer to go home, and Rudy has no less entitlement for leaving prison. There is no argument to adjust or crook the law because of Amanda and only complain if it is applied to Amanda.

I know the cases I'm quoting. I can't read the ones you're quoting, as you know, because they are in Italian. i am not asking for the rules to be bent, just that whatever rules there are are applied consistently. If you have self confessed child molesters, war criminals and mafia bosses allowed to go home while far less serious criminals are not, then you seem to have chaos rather than a functioning legal system.

I know your answer will be something along the lines of 'the court decided...' so there's no need to respond.
 
Last edited:
Saw an article posted at PMF that contained a link to this abstract and it mentions both coffee and cherry soda along with rust and bleach possibly causing a positive Luminol reaction.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac101107v

http://gizmodo.com/5689095/blood-camera-to-spot-invisible-stains-at-crime-scenes

Who has not spilled some coffee on occasion? The more I read about what does or doesn't cause a Luminol reaction, the more confusing these things get.

Old pipes contain a LOT of rust at times. The water can even run brown. Draw a bath and let the rust settle to the bottom, drain the water, step in the rust residue and you don't even need luminol to see your footprint.!
 
Would it be too much trouble to ask you to enumerate each lie, and to spell out the approximate time and place for context?

Could you further list the contradictions, and explain how it is a contradiction?

Please, if at all possible, be specific and concrete. On the one hand, your posts are strongly declarative, but provide no actual information;( e.g. "his explanations and stories are inconsistent, and not credible", "it contains outright lies and grave contradictions". "his writings are omissive, elusive, deceptive." etc.) Thus, you force your reader to respond as though blindfolded, guessing about the exact information you are using to make your claims. It is very hard to argue well against such general statements.

To enumerate all of them would take too long. I don't feel like doing these lists, it's very boring for me as I feel it as a big waste of time. You could instead ask to mention one point or two and analyse it. Clearly, the weight is given by the whole picture and its effect on Raffaele's credibility. But it is about aspects of what he wrote that and said that each of us can see and assess on his own. I like the idea that people "discover" things themselves, I don't like when clues in murder misteries are "explained" by someone else.
 
I know the cases I'm quoting. I can't read the ones you're quoting, as you know, because they are in Italian. i am not asking for the rules to be bent, just that whatever rules there are are applied consistently. If you have self confessed child molesters, war criminals and mafia bosses allowed to go home while far less serious criminals are not, then you seem to have chaos rather than a functioning legal system.

I know your answer will be something along the lines of 'the court decided...' so there's no need to respond.

Whenever there is a confessed crime there are bigger chances to be released in Italy, or for being at house arrest even after conviction. When a suspect or convict admits, cooperates and shows remorse, this is usually considered a main indicator for a lower risk of escape.
 
It was not "given an impression" and was not "misinformation": a research was posted with several quotes and citation of scientific literature with articulated topics, for everyone to read.
The collected papers were not that confusing in their conclusions.

The topic of chemical reagents in the case of the Luminol prints must be dealt with differently, anyway. For the court, the failure by the defence to indicate or suggest an alternative substance (present in the house) is a point of capital value. The judges are not allowed to rest on a passive approach like the one suggested by RoseMontague.

The judges are supposed to have a presumption of innocence, we keep coming to this same issue. It is not up to the defense to prove that it was something in the house that may have caused this, it is up to the prosecution to prove the reaction was caused by blood. The prosecution failed to do so. The defense suggested alternate substances and emphasized the fact that specific tests for blood should determine the nature of the reaction and not the initial presumptive test with luminol.


In beginning her statement, she considered various Luminol tests from the point of view forensic genetics. She thus demonstrated the existence of numerous substances that are ‚Luminol positive ... such as, for example, horseradish, turnips, potatoes, fruit juices‛ and also pointed out that many parts of the internal fittings of motor vehicles can give false positives when they are sprayed with Luminol. Sometimes, she added, even [247] terracotta or ceramic tiles, paints, and enamels can produce this interference. She recalled therefore that, in Romanelli’s room, samples were taken and only two of these samples yielded an attributable genetic profile; in Knox’s room, three samples were taken which produced a positive outcome regarding the genetic investigation; four samples were taken in the hallway but only one yielded a genetic profile suitable for comparison. She emphasised as well that,
even though Luminol is a substance used to identify latent traces that could be blood, the certainty that these are indeed blood comes only from specific tests for this type of biological fluid.
As the for biological trace samples which were taken, she pointed out that they were taken from a floor and that ‚biological material that we find on the floor could have come from outside, that is, it could come from a place that I had visited earlier, precisely because it was stuck to the bottom of my shoe, or maybe I put my handbag down and didn’t notice that there was a biological specimen there‛ (page 87).
 
To enumerate all of them would take too long. I don't feel like doing these lists, it's very boring for me as I feel it as a big waste of time. You could instead ask to mention one point or two and analyse it. Clearly, the weight is given by the whole picture and its effect on Raffaele's credibility. But it is about aspects of what he wrote that and said that each of us can see and assess on his own. I like the idea that people "discover" things themselves, I don't like when clues in murder misteries are "explained" by someone else.

No need to enumerate all of the stories of Raffaele's lies, just the substantiated ones: i.e. those not attributed to him by police, or the result of police manipulation, or those that were misrepresented in media reports.

That shouldn't take long. Enumerating the substantiated lies told by the police and prosecutor takes rather longer.
 
Whenever there is a confessed crime there are bigger chances to be released in Italy, or for being at house arrest even after conviction. When a suspect or convict admits, cooperates and shows remorse, this is usually considered a main indicator for a lower risk of escape.

But earlier you claimed that on charges of sexual violence a decree for precautional custody is mandatory, as the judges' first decision.

In the case of the child molester priest, you are wrong. He never went to prison, he went straight to house arrest. I understand normal laws don't apply to the Vatican, of course.

Erich Priebke, the Nazi war criminal, never accepted responsiblity for the murders he committed, but was still given house arrest.
 
Last edited:
luminol and plant peroxidases

It was not "given an impression" and was not "misinformation": a research was posted with several quotes and citation of scientific literature with articulated topics, for everyone to read.
The collected papers were not that confusing in their conclusions.

The topic of chemical reagents in the case of the Luminol prints must be dealt with differently, anyway. For the court, the failure by the defence to indicate or suggest an alternative substance (present in the house) is a point of capital value. The judges are not allowed to rest on a passive approach like the one suggested by RoseMontague.

Machiavelli,

Certain metal ions, many plant-based products, and bleach are all well-known to react positively with luminol. In the case of plant products, plant peroxidase enzymes are definitely known to react positively, and I have seen one mention of chlorophyll, but I would like to check into this further. The onus is on the forensic team to do confirmatory blood tests, not on the defense to explain the results.

One final note on bleach. It is relatively inert (slow to decompose) in bottles, and it does not evaporate (it is a salt, and therefore it is non-volatile). However, I am aware of one report in the forensic literature that suggests that the interference of bleach goes away with time. The inertness of bleach in bottles versus its apparent lability when applied to a floor has not yet been reconciled, as far as I can tell.
 
There is anyway something more to say about Mignini's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem corrupt. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgements I read about Mignini's abuse of power seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on the Italian reality.

How many people have had charges filed on them or been arrested so far in connection to this case?

Amanda
Raffaele
Rudy
Patrick
Amanda's mom
Amanda's dad
Four members of Raffaele's family
Two bloggers overseas
The defense lawyers

Am I missing anyone?

I wonder if Giuliano Mignini realizes that people notice that?

Here's an article I read on him translated from the Italian:
http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2010/02/08/i-metodi-di-giuliano-mignini-sei-mio-nemico-vai-indagato/

You're my enemy? Then I will indict you.

The Index. Following the conviction of the pm Giuliano Mignini and of the policeman-turned-writer Michele Giuttari, their methods of investigation have come under severe criticism. Many blacklists found.

A blacklist, a secret file with the names of parliamentarians, ministers, and journalists. This is what investigators have discovered on the personal computer of Giuliano Mignini, the Italian prosecutor who has been heavily criticized in America (the same one who pointed a severely accusatory finger against the American Amanda Knox in the trial for the death of Meredith Kercher) and the lead investigator in the second part of the investigation of the Monster of Florence.

Florentine prosecutors Luca Turco and Gabriele Mazzotta have uncovered a series of “strange items” in the investigations conducted by Mignini and the policeman-writer Michele Giuttari, who were searching for the masterminds behind the serial killings of couples. The end result: on January 22 the Tribunale of Florence convicted the magistrate and the chief inspector for abuse of office.

According to the verdict of conviction (the two men received respectively a year and six months and a year and four months in prison, beyond a ban on holding public office), the two, in 2006, illegally investigated certain journalists, the police chief of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and two high officials of the Viminale [the Ministry of the Interior in Rome].

However, the disturbing files in question opened other possibilities. The affair had its origin in April 2006, during the sensational arrest of the journalist Mario Spezi for involvement in murder and obstruction of justice. Spezi spent 23 days in prison, of which five were spent in an isolation cell, denied access to his attorney, under laws of the Penal Code meant to be applied only to extremely dangerous criminals such as terrorists.

Spezi’s arrest unleashed scathing criticism by some journalists. Giuttari and Mignini responded with a series of “assessments” (later judged illegal by the tribunale) authorized under the signature of Judge Marina De Robertis, who used a legal procedure meant only to be employed in an emergency; but these emergency authorizations were never retroactively justified as required by law.

One of the cases involved the wiretapping of a cellular telephone owned by the daily newspaper, La Stampa, in use by the reporter Vincenzo Tessandori, who was moreover illegally investigated beyond normal judicial procedures, but who had written several articles critical of the investigation. The same illegal harassment was directed at other newspaper reporters such as Gennaro De Stefano (who has since died) and Roberto Fiasconaro.

Giuttari and Mignini ordered the wiretapping and shadowing of two police officials from the press office of the Polizia in Rome, who had earlier asked Giuttari to limit his television appearances.

These are the facts that have emerged from the Florentine inquiries. Here is a passage from the indictments written by the pm Turco regarding the fact that the victims of this judicial abuse were investigated illegally, outside of normal judicial procedures. “If Mignini suspected a crime had been committed, he had the capacity and obligation to investigate the suspect in a proper and legal manner.” But even more disturbing, for the repercussions it had, is the list of “enemies” of Mignini.

From December 2005 to May 2006 a file was created and added to entitled “Attacks to Remember”, in which there is another file: “Orgy of Attacks Following the Arrest of Spezi; an index of newspapers: Libero, Il Giornale, Oggi.” Following that is a long list of people “To Remember” that consisted of the names of some of the most prominent judges involved in the case of the Monster of Florence, a long list of politicians, among which could be found the ex-mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, the deputy mayor Michele Venturo and the Minister of the Environment Altero Matteoli, all of whom signed a petition of solidarity protesting Spezi’s incarceration.

He's been busted once for it, and he's doing it again. A simple break-in gone bad becomes a bizarre conspiracy for one reason: Giuliano Mignini. He blew it and is again trying to silence anyone who points it out.

I just don't think he's going to get away with it.
 
Machiavelli,



One final note on bleach. It is relatively inert (slow to decompose) in bottles, and it does not evaporate (it is a salt, and therefore it is non-volatile). However, I am aware of one report in the forensic literature that suggests that the interference of bleach goes away with time. The inertness of bleach in bottles versus its apparent lability when applied to a floor has not yet been reconciled, as far as I can tell.

Sodium hypochlorite, (NaOCl) the active ingredient in bleach, begins to decompose when exposed to UV rays (i.e. normal daylight). That's why it's always stored in opaque bottles.
 
_________________________________________

In Raffaele's Diary he tells us what Amanda wanted him to lie about.................

"Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic."
And further confirmation of just what the lie was, derived from his police interrogation of November 5th...

"Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.

He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."
(From Judge Matteini REPORT, > Matteini Report)

///

Knox persuaded him to talk crap about what? What night did she go to the bar and when did she return? What exact lie was he referring to or he doesn't say. Was it a lie the police told him or knox told him.
So your saying Knox convinced him to say she wasn't at his apartment? your also saying he gave a statement to the police that Knox never returned home with him and didn't show up until 1am. Yet we know for a fact that knox was there when he got his phone call from his dad. Was this interview entered into evidence in the trial?
 
Last edited:
Back to what can interfere with Luminol.

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.865/abstract

Table 1 shows the effect on CL intensity when luminol
is applied to a bleach-stained surface after various dry-
ing times. While bleach solutions contain stabilizers, they
are volatile, decomposing and evaporating reasonably
quickly, as observed. While the bleach stains initially
catalysed considerable CL, any interference became
negligible after 8 h.

and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.723/abstract
This study of 250 different substances indicates that while the
majority (ca. 240) do not produce sufficiently intense
chemiluminescence with the luminol reaction to be
easily mistaken for blood, nine commonly occurring sub-
stances do. These are, turnips, parsnips, horseradishes,
commercial bleach (NaClO), copper metal, some furni-
ture polishes, some enamel paints, and some interior
fabric in motor vehicles.

and the percentage of luminescence (in brackets) compared with blood (=100%) from the above quote
Copper metal (106 ± 10)
Enamel paint (Dulux®) (100 ± 10)
125 g/L NaClO(aq) (84 ± 22)
Dark green spray paint (Taubman®) (81 ± 34)
Turnip (pulp) (74 ± 35)
Parsnip (pulp) (56 ± 23)
Roof lining (1992 Ford Laser®) (22 ± 11)
Horseradish (pulp) (20 ± 12)
Wooden-furniture polish (Goddard’s®) (20 ± 4)

Fruit juice, rust, coffee etc are all in the %5 area (or less than), and would have negligible interference if any (not visible to the eye).
 
Last edited:
_________________________________________

In Raffaele's Diary he tells us what Amanda wanted him to lie about.................

"Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic."

No, I don't think this is the right interpretation of what he wrote (to be fair, it's phrased confusingly). This is clear from the full quote:

Today the judge questioned me and said that I had given three different statements, but the only difference I find is that I said Amanda induced me to say crap in the second version...

Or to put it more clearly: "the only difference I find is that, in the second version, I said that Amanda induced me to say crap". He's recounting what he said in the second version, and talking about the differences between that and his other two statements. The first of those differences (according to Raffaele) is that he said in his second version that Amanda induced him to talk crap in his earlier statement, when he said they were together all night; the second difference is that he said Amanda left the house to go to work. He's not saying Amanda told him to tell the police she left to go to work (as Charlie said, that makes little sense).

I know it's confusing because it's Raffaele saying he said that Amanda did something (I find I said Amanda did, etc) and Raffaele isn't the clearest at expressing himself anyway. But so far as I can see this is the only logical way to interpret it.

And further confirmation of just what the lie was, derived from his police interrogation of November 5th...

He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."
(From Judge Matteini REPORT, > Matteini Report)

But as I pointed out, that's not what Matteini's report said. Matteini says quite neutrally (and probably quite carefully) only that Amanda "influenced" him in his earlier statements. She certainly doesn't say Knox convinced him to lie. Again, here's what Raffaele said in that second statement, which is really what the whole discussion is about:

In my previous statement I said a load of crap because Amanda convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions.

This is what Raffaele is referring to in his diary, and it's what Matteini is referring to as well. Can you really interpret this as Raffaele claiming Amanda told him to lie? You would think he would've been well aware of the 'contradictions' if that were the case...
 
Last edited:
Back to what can interfere with Luminol.

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.865/abstract



and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.723/abstract


and the percentage of luminescence (in brackets) compared with blood (=100%) from the above quote


Fruit juice, rust, coffee etc are all in the %5 area (or less than), and would have negligible interference if any (not visible to the eye).

This is not authoritative as nobody else can access the relevant document at the link you posted. In future, please do not post links others cannot access.

If it were so unlikely that rust or coffee could give a false positive result, then why would the New Scientist article Rose quoted mention it as being a problem?
 
Last edited:
Back to what can interfere with Luminol.

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.865/abstract



and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.723/abstract


and the percentage of luminescence (in brackets) compared with blood (=100%) from the above quote


Fruit juice, rust, coffee etc are all in the %5 area (or less than), and would have negligible interference if any (not visible to the eye).

I have seen that study many times and it remains the one most quoted and often contradicted by things like the 2 articles I linked to today. As I said, very confusing. Then you have the fact that they would mention coffee and cherry soda in the same context with bleach and rust. If it were not possible to confuse these things why are substances like these used as examples?
 
This is not authoritative as nobody else can access the relevant document at the link you posted. In future, please do not post links others cannot access.

If it were so unlikely that rust or coffee could give a false positive result, then why would the New Scientist article Rose quoted mention it as being a problem?

The full pdf is also available online without a subscription, I will try to find the link if you are unable to locate it. I also have a copy saved if it has been removed. Otherwise, my question and concerns are the same as yours.
 
There is anyway something more to say about Mignini's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem corrupt. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgements I read about Mignini's abuse of power seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on the Italian reality.

Here again is a very strongly worded point of view that is completely absent of explanatory fact. It is difficult to asses the validity of your point of view if you do not share with your opinion the facts and method you have used to derive your opinion.

I am not targeting you on this. Actually, you are one of just a handful of PMF'ers who have an opinion worth listening to. However, if your intent is to create a compelling argument, I do think the facts the argument are based on must be clearly stated.
 
How many people have had charges filed on them or been arrested so far in connection to this case?

Amanda
Raffaele
Rudy
Patrick
Amanda's mom
Amanda's dad
Four members of Raffaele's family
Two bloggers overseas
The defense lawyers

Am I missing anyone?

Yes, I think there were charges filed against a couple of 'Oggi' journalists? IIRC that magazine was one of the few to publish articles expressing doubt about Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in the murder.

These are the facts that have emerged from the Florentine inquiries. Here is a passage from the indictments written by the pm Turco regarding the fact that the victims of this judicial abuse were investigated illegally, outside of normal judicial procedures. “If Mignini suspected a crime had been committed, he had the capacity and obligation to investigate the suspect in a proper and legal manner.” But even more disturbing, for the repercussions it had, is the list of “enemies” of Mignini.

From December 2005 to May 2006 a file was created and added to entitled “Attacks to Remember”, in which there is another file: “Orgy of Attacks Following the Arrest of Spezi; an index of newspapers: Libero, Il Giornale, Oggi.” Following that is a long list of people “To Remember” that consisted of the names of some of the most prominent judges involved in the case of the Monster of Florence, a long list of politicians, among which could be found the ex-mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, the deputy mayor Michele Venturo and the Minister of the Environment Altero Matteoli, all of whom signed a petition of solidarity protesting Spezi’s incarceration.

Wow. That's quite something...
 
This is not authoritative as nobody else can access the relevant document at the link you posted. In future, please do not post links others cannot access.

If it were so unlikely that rust or coffee could give a false positive result, then why would the New Scientist article Rose quoted mention it as being a problem?
Buy a subscription, or ask Kevin_Lowe, LondonJohn or halides1 to confirm the contents, as they all have quoted from abstract papers.

It's also hypocritical telling me to not post links to documents, while at the same time lauding RoseMontague post which had a link to a subscription to read the full paper.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom