Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

.
An honest question: is the appeal only an appeal for the murder conviction, or for the murder and slander convictions?

They are appealing everything, knox and sollecito where convicted of. Just as Mignini is appealing the light sentence they got.

 

[Chris C]

This is not correct. In any legal system, it's not a mitigating factor when accused of murder to say you were stoned or drunk.

If that were the case, all you need to do is get drunk or claim to be drunk and you can kill anyone with a reduced penalty.

It can be used as a mitigating factor for the degree of murder you get convicted of or are charged with. Not all mitigating factors help the defendant

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol wavelength and DNA profiling

A few quick notes on luminol before I have to disappear again for a little while:

Luminol does not destroy DNA, but it can reduce the amount you recover, depending on the formulation. At the Friends of Amanda website, you can find an article about luminol from the journal Talanta (Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913). If you go through the references, two or three of them deal with DNA recovery. I have previously given these citations on this thread or the preceding one, but I do not recall previously citing the paper below. “It [luminol] had the greatest sensitivity and specificity. It did not destroy the DNA, and it could be reapplied.” Figure 1 and Table 4 show a profile and give the DNA peak heights. In this study Bluestar did not interfere with DNA recovery, but curiously its specificity was much lower than luminol.
Shanan S. Tobe M.Sc., Nigel Watson Ph.D., Niamh Nic Daéid Ph.D
“Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” Journal of Forensic Sciences 52, 2007, 102-109.
Abstract

Colonel Garofano said that the luminol was overapplied, leading to dilution of the image and loss of detail. I consider Colonel Garofano to be knowledgeable about luminol, but I do not agree with everything he has written (in Darkness Descending) about DNA profiling. Given this problem plus the lack of reference prints from Laura or Filomena, saying that the prints match anyone is unsupportable.

I stand by every word I have written on the need to follow up a presumptive test for blood with a confirmatory test. The pro-guilt position in effect eliminates the need for confirmatory tests (DNA profiling is not a confirmatory test, as I discussed upthread). My personal view is that a negative result for DNA is more indicative that the substance is unlikely to be blood than a positive result is indicative that the substance is likely to be blood. Unless a proper confirmatory test were done, there is no reason to conclude that a luminol-positive area is blood. That statement is not the same as saying a stain cannot be blood.

On the question of wavelengths, the data I have seen (Table 2 in the Talanta paper) give no reason to believe that one could tell apart one substance from another. For example the shift of copper relative to hemoglobin is given as 2 ± 11 nm. In other words the two wavelengths are identical within experimental error.

 

[Kermit]

It's never too late too try to pull this one ... well, maybe

An honest question: is the appeal only an appeal for the murder conviction, or for the murder and slander convictions?

They are appealing everything, knox and sollecito where convicted of. Just as Mignini is appealing the light sentence they got.

Well, in that case, whether Amanda wants it or not, parts of her declaration are indeed included, and she therefore has the opportunity to use the I-was-too-stoned-at-the-time-of-the-November-5-questioning excuse to get out of, or at least attenuate the importance of her declarations of that night.

She could even explain the police beating that way: "Well, I dreamed they cuffed me three times".

 

[s_pepys]

good post halides. thanks.

lxxx

 

[Solange305]

If we don't hear from you again before next week, have a good thanksgiving Halides

 

[Kermit]

Unless a proper confirmatory test were done, there is no reason to conclude that a luminol-positive area is blood. That statement is not the same as saying a stain cannot be blood.

.
Okay Halides, don't always agree with you, but thanks for the comment, which is a well-developed response to my unanswered question to Withnail.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Doesn't the FOAK organisation brief anyone? And where are the old flashes in the pan? That showman lawyer who was involved in the Natalee Holloway case? Where's he now? Why didn't he continue with the pro-Amanda parade of famous people who walk on stage then promptly walk off? Was Paul Ciolino at the Vashon pig-out over the weekend? Who's going to replace the FBI agent when he burns out?

Why do you call it a pig-out?

 

[s_pepys]

hey mary

what is kermit referring too?

lxxx

 

[Kermit]

Tell me more, tell me more, did you get very far?

Why do you call it a pig-out?

Step 1, read Steve Shay:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/11/10/news/next-amanda-knox-fundraiser-be-held-vashon-island
"We're planning a dinner for 300. This thing could cut loose and go nuts."

=================================================

Step 2, apply an appropriate expressión:

(pĭg'out')
n. Slang
The act or an instance of voracious eating by a person or group.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pig-out

=================================================


Quid pro quo, Mary, I answered you: Now, I would just love to know if you could tell me if you are aware (by attendance or by talking to people who were there) of Paul Ciolino's presence.

Don't take it either as an accusation or trying to dig up who you are, I simply thought that maybe you might be able to shed some light on this question. All the same either way.

 

[s_pepys]

oh, i see.

a fundraising dinner for ms Knox.

fair play.

lxxx

 

[Mary_H]

Step 1, read Steve Shay:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/11/10/news/next-amanda-knox-fundraiser-be-held-vashon-island
"We're planning a dinner for 300. This thing could cut loose and go nuts."

=================================================

Step 2, apply an appropriate expressión:

(pĭg'out')
n. Slang
The act or an instance of voracious eating by a person or group.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pig-out

=================================================


Quid pro quo, Mary, I answered you: Now, I would just love to know if you could tell me if you are aware (by attendance or by talking to people who were there) of Paul Ciolino's presence.

Don't take it either as an accusation or trying to dig up who you are, I simply thought that maybe you might be able to shed some light on this question. All the same either way.

I don't take it as anything other than an understandable question of curiosity. Alas, I can't answer it, though, as I did not go nor have I talked to anyone who did. I promise to let you know if I find out that Paul Ciolino was there.

When I see the phrase "cut loose and go nuts" I think of dancing.

 

[Kermit]

I promise to let you know if I find out that Paul Ciolino was there.

Thanks very much. Just call it morbid curiosity on my part.

When I see the phrase "cut loose and go nuts" I think of dancing.

Ha! you must be in better shape than I, as I see a poster for a spaghetti dinner and free signed copies of Girlanda's book, and I think "pig-out".

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks very much. Just call it morbid curiosity on my part.

Nothing morbid about it. Unless you know something I don't know.

Ha! you must be in better shape than I, as I see a poster for a spaghetti dinner and free signed copies of Girlanda's book, and I think "pig-out".

There is a very strong likelihood I am not in better shape than you.

 

[Kermit]

There is a very strong likelihood I am not in better shape than you.

Oh come on Mary: on my side, too many tapas and cañas have taken their toll (one nasty pro-Knox poster once claimed that I eat cheesies at the computer). And on your side, if you're anything close to that reference figure for being in shape - Candace Dempsey, who claims to be able to scale Filomena's outer wall herself - well then, that fresh Seattle air must do wonders.

 

[christianahannah]

A few quick notes on luminol before I have to disappear again for a little while:

Luminol does not destroy DNA, but it can reduce the amount you recover, depending on the formulation. At the Friends of Amanda website, you can find an article about luminol from the journal Talanta (Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913). If you go through the references, two or three of them deal with DNA recovery. I have previously given these citations on this thread or the preceding one, but I do not recall previously citing the paper below. “It [luminol] had the greatest sensitivity and specificity. It did not destroy the DNA, and it could be reapplied.” Figure 1 and Table 4 show a profile and give the DNA peak heights. In this study Bluestar did not interfere with DNA recovery, but curiously its specificity was much lower than luminol.
Shanan S. Tobe M.Sc., Nigel Watson Ph.D., Niamh Nic Daéid Ph.D
“Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” Journal of Forensic Sciences 52, 2007, 102-109.
Abstract

Colonel Garofano said that the luminol was overapplied, leading to dilution of the image and loss of detail. I consider Colonel Garofano to be knowledgeable about luminol, but I do not agree with everything he has written (in Darkness Descending) about DNA profiling. Given this problem plus the lack of reference prints from Laura or Filomena, saying that the prints match anyone is unsupportable.

I stand by every word I have written on the need to follow up a presumptive test for blood with a confirmatory test. The pro-guilt position in effect eliminates the need for confirmatory tests (DNA profiling is not a confirmatory test, as I discussed upthread). My personal view is that a negative result for DNA is more indicative that the substance is unlikely to be blood than a positive result is indicative that the substance is likely to be blood. Unless a proper confirmatory test were done, there is no reason to conclude that a luminol-positive area is blood. That statement is not the same as saying a stain cannot be blood.

On the question of wavelengths, the data I have seen (Table 2 in the Talanta paper) give no reason to believe that one could tell apart one substance from another. For example the shift of copper relative to hemoglobin is given as 2 ± 11 nm. In other words the two wavelengths are identical within experimental error.

Does Colonel Garofano give a reason why he believes the luminol was over applied? Are there other reasons why there might be loss of detail in an image?

Also, this might not be an intelligent question, but why wasn't luminol applied to Meredith's bedroom floor or to the small bathroom floor?

 

[Mary_H]

Oh come on Mary: on my side, too many tapas and cañas have taken their toll (one nasty pro-Knox poster once claimed that I eat cheesies at the computer). And on your side, if you're anything close to that reference figure for being in shape - Candace Dempsey, who claims to be able to scale Filomena's outer wall herself - well then, that fresh Seattle air must do wonders.

Yes, but you have to go outside for the effect.

 

[Kermit]

Twinkle toes ...

I met Candace at one of her readings and I can assure you she is extremely light on her feet.

.
The insides of my cheeks are aching sore from biting them. I don't have time to take up this wonderful opportunity to develop that statement.

Gotta go,

 

[Dan O.]

On the question of wavelengths, the data I have seen (Table 2 in the Talanta paper) give no reason to believe that one could tell apart one substance from another. For example the shift of copper relative to hemoglobin is given as 2 ± 11 nm. In other words the two wavelengths are identical within experimental error.

Since the element being detected by luminol is being used as a catalyst and not directly as part of the chemical reaction giving off photons, the substance itself cannot cause a wavelength shift. What I have seen in the papers that discuss luminol is that there can be both filtering that blocks part of the emission spectrum and florescence that converts some of the UV emissions to visible wavelengths. Both of these can cause an apparent shift in the overall spectrum though none of the actual emissions are shifted.

In any case, the apparent shift is a function of the entire chemical mix in the area being tested and not limited to the substance causing the reaction.

 

[Matthew Best]

As an aside, Dan O: I feel obliged to inform you that luminol (with an "o") is the chemical used to detect blood at crime scenes, and luminal (with an "a") is a brand name for the barbiturate drug Phenobarbital.