• 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.
Kermit said:
Yes. That is what I think, that testable DNA (halides could jump on me with his DNA on dust article) in the samples was affected by the luminol.

Now that I've replied to you three (or four?) times, let me request for the third or fourth time your reply to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"
Click to expand...

Luminol doesn't affect DNA. Thats the reason they use it.
 
Kermit said:
Yes. That is what I think, that testable DNA (halides could jump on me with his DNA on dust article) in the samples was affected by the luminol.

Now that I've replied to you three (or four?) times, let me request for the third or fourth time your reply to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"
Click to expand...

So you are saying the DNA was actually destroyed by the luminol? That's the question I'm asking. The reason I'm asking that question, as I'm sure you know and I know, is that I caught you out on your apparent claim that luminol always destroys DNA. I proved you wrong by showing that there are types of luminol available on the open market which do not affect DNA. If you had actually done some research yourself you would have known that.

Now if you could just answer the question this time, we can move on.
 
Withnail1969 said:
Now if you could just answer the question this time, we can move on.
Click to expand...
.
Having replied to all the jousts and different variants on your question, I take it you don't want to reply to my simple question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"

That's fine with me.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
The luminol doesn't seem to have been very sensitive. Shouldn't it have picked up a lot more blood traces than just footprints?
Click to expand...


A careful reading of Massei indicates that luminal was first sprayed in a general area and then the tripod and camera were setup to photograph the spots where the luminal reacted (presumably with a second application of luminal). There may have been some bias to photograph only those spots that appear to be useful such as shapes that look like footprints. For instance, were there luminal reactions at the sites where the visible prints were scrubbed up earlier?

But then, how much can we rely on Massei. On one page he is speaking generally about how florescent tape is* used as a reference when photographing in tha dark. Then on the very next page he states that the luminal prints were photographed with no reference at all.

ETA: ahh, the translators dropped the "not" just like Google often does.
 
Last edited:
s_pepys said:
WITHNAIL!!

he has answered your question. Look back at the posts.

jeeez!

lxxx
Click to expand...

the question is very simple, and it has not so far been answered. I'm still waiting for a yes or no answer to the question of whether the luminol test destroyed (not 'affected') any DNA in the footprints at the murder scene.

When i receive that answer, we can move on.
 
Kermit said:
Yes. That is what I think, that testable DNA (halides could jump on me with his DNA on dust article) in the samples was affected by the luminol.

Now that I've replied to you three (or four?) times, let me request for the third or fourth time your reply to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"
Click to expand...


move along. please...
 
Chris C said:
Actually you basicly answered your own question There is a lack of Knox's DNA in the room. There isn't a lack of DNA in Meredith's room. Of all the evidence they gathered only 1 disputed test had either Sollecito's or Knox's dna in that room. However, there is plenty of other peoples dna present or possible sources of dna that hasn't been tested. Thats the question they are trying to raise. Why have the owners of the other dna not been identified and questioned. What if they take samples of the other 2 roommates and their dna is in that room. Would your opinion of Knox then change. What if the semen samples isn't Meredith's boyfriend. Would your opinion change? What about the bra clasp? What if they where able to identify the other 2 or 3 peoples dna that was present on it? Would your opinion on sollecito still be the same?
Click to expand...

I understand the point the defense is trying to make, but why use the gangster's brother to make it? The gangster's version of events is that his brother is the actual killer, not someone who was just in the apartment and might have left DNA there. He said that Meredith scratched his brother. He says he knows the location of the knife and the keys. How is this helping the defense when it's clearly not true?
 
s_pepys said:
http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/luminol


"When biological samples have to be collected for DNA or other tests, luminol should only be used after samples are seized. Luminol's chemical reactions with blood and other body proteins destroy some important genetic markers required for DNA fingerprinting."

please?

lxxx
Click to expand...

Doesn't apply to this product, available since 2000.

http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/bluestar.php

# BLUESTAR® FORENSIC does not alter DNA and allows for both subsequent DNA typing and ABO typing.

# BLUESTAR® FORENSIC works as well on fresh blood as on very old or altered bloodstains, pure or diluted.
 
Are these footprints, ones so diluted they were not visible to the naked eye and the delay in collecting samples and testing was because of defense could not agree to a date to examine them?
 
BLUESTAR® FORENSIC does not alter DNA and allows for both subsequent DNA typing and ABO typing.


It does, however, have some drawbacks – luminol is potentially toxic, it sometimes dilutes blood evidence to the point that DNA can’t be detected, it can smear blood spatter patterns, and it sometimes provides false positives.


a. not the same thing. small amounts like in the apartment=easy dilution.

b. its from advertising bumf from ther manufacturer anyway.

c. you dont know what make of luminol was being used.

d. non conclusive either way. move on...

lxxx
 
Withnail1969 said:
Doesn't apply to this product, available since 2000.

http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/bluestar.php

# BLUESTAR® FORENSIC does not alter DNA and allows for both subsequent DNA typing and ABO typing.

# BLUESTAR® FORENSIC works as well on fresh blood as on very old or altered bloodstains, pure or diluted.
Click to expand...
Do you get a commission on this stuff?

It's apparent that the Italian police didn't use BLUESTAR®.

So, you still haven't replied to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"
 
s_pepys said:
WITHNAIL!!

he has answered your question. Look back at the posts.

jeeez!

lxxx
Click to expand...

I'll help them both move on. Its like the movie groundhog day when talking about the luminol footprints.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol

Guilter: The luminol footprints where made in blood.

Supporter: Footprints where tested with 2 other types of tests to verify it was blood and both came back negative. Therefore no blood.

Guilter: Luminol destroys dna.

Supporter: Only if the investigator was so incompetent to use a type of luminol solution that destroys dna. Therefore if the footprints where blood then the scientifica are morons.

Guilter: But bleach could remove dna, then evaporate, and then the surface could be tested later to see the footprints.

Supporter: The bleach would smear the blood, thus leaving a big blue blob.

Guilter: They could have dabbed the bleach on the footprints thus not smearing the footprint.

Supporter: That process would take longer than 1 day and the house would smell like bleach when the investigators arrived.

Guilter: They bought bleach that morning.

Supporter: Prove it.

Guilter: The store owner said he saw knox eye f****** a bottle of bleach before leaving.

Supporter: So she was trying to buy bleach instead of cleaning up? Police showed him a picture and he said he didn't see her that day.

Guilter: The luminol footprints where made in blood.
 
s_pepys said:
BLUESTAR® FORENSIC does not alter DNA and allows for both subsequent DNA typing and ABO typing.
Click to expand...

Why would you paste the rubbish from the cretin-level sites you've just trawled into the product specifications of Bluestar Forensic luminol?

What's that supposed to prove?
 
Kermit said:
Do you get a commission on this stuff?

It's apparent that the Italian police didn't use BLUESTAR®.

So, you still haven't replied to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"
Click to expand...

why wouldn't they use a generic brand of luminol similar to BLUESTAR which didn't destroy DNA given that it's been on sale for 10 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom