Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

specific (confirmatory) blood tests

halides,

Could you help clarify something?

Luminol found the footprints. Luminol reacts to many things like blood, bleach, rust.

Then a test for TMB was done. My understanding is that TMB is used as a presumptive blood test even though it isn't a test specifically for blood.

The TMB test was negative. There wouldn't be any reason to do a specific blood test after a negative TMB result right? Wouldn't a specific blood test only be done if the TMB test was postive?

Steve Moore said in the Seattle U. panel that it was standard for luminol hits to be followed up with TMB to confirm if it was blood or not.

Draca,

This is a more complex issue than it looks at first examination. I have seen at least one case where TMB was used as a follow-up to another presumptive test, leuco crystal violet. The TMB test, like luminol, is presumptive. I can certainly see the logic in performing a confirmatory test when the TMB test is positive. It is difficult to see the point doing a confirmatory test if the TMB were negative. The only exception I can think of would be if there were a reason to think that the TMB test was being inhibited.

 

[theRealBob]

,Monica Napoleoni too frightened to come to court to face her Mignini probably knows now by remaining on the prosecutorial team he is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself

Quite right. About time too.

 

[theRealBob]

Bob! Did you get banned for posting this innocuous filk at In Sessions? I notice it's not there anymore and I got an 'infraction' for my post laughing at it! It was a 'language' violation, and all I said was something to the effect of 'The Flying Pig Squad Anthem.' You don't have any bad words in yours either, what did they say was the reason for your ban?

Actually I got banned for bad language I think. For the rest of my life as usual.

I was much nastier over there in my former incarnation. There used to be far more Guilters there at that stage and Knoxcase and I just vanquished them. Then the Administrators got rid of me.

I suppose you noticed this typing gem...

HiHoooo HiHoooo

It’s off to work we goooo
We fiddled around with a bra-clasp
And no there’s hope those tests can pass
So we just filed it in a wet glass


Doesn't matter where I go some things remain the same.

I had a reply to my question 'Why do cops like framing people ?'

But the real pointy is 'what pleasure do they get out of it?' when they know they're wrong anyway. What's the point ? What good is there in it ? This is not the only case where cops have been framing people and enjoying the continual behaviour that type of attention to a crime-resolution involves.

 

[Draca]

Luminol Hit - Followed by TMB test for blood

Draca,

This is a more complex issue than it looks at first examination. I have seen at least one case where TMB was used as a follow-up to another presumptive test, leuco crystal violet. The TMB test, like luminol, is presumptive. I can certainly see the logic in performing a confirmatory test when the TMB test is positive. It is difficult to see the point doing a confirmatory test if the TMB were negative. The only exception I can think of would be if there were a reason to think that the TMB test was being inhibited.

Thanks halides,

This corresponds with what Steve Moore said about FBI procedures. In the FIELD, TMB is used on luminol hits to determine if there is blood present. If the reaction is negative testing stops there. If it is positive then samples are brought to the lab for further analysis. This is exactly what the Perugia Forensic team did.

Stefanoni lied, she used the TMB to test for blood. That TMB is not an official blood test is a technicality she used to say she didn't test the footprints for blood.

 

[Draca]

Massei pg 257-258
"the negative result of the TMB test (tetramethylbenzidine) made it impossible to determine exactly what material had been analysed. She did, in any case, confirm that the profile of Knox had been found ("Certainly, Knox's genetic profile was found", page 79).

She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive, [276] and added that the acronym TMP indicated a colourimetric reaction which occurs in the presence of tetramethylbenzidine, which had been substituted for the carcinogenic benzidine; the presence of blood can be detected by means of this reaction."

Is Stefanoni claiming here that TMB is only 50% effective in detecting blood?

 

[lionking]

Is there any conditionality to your view, or is your view as definitive and certain as it appears here?

A very curious question. Are you not absolutely convinced of her innocence? Are you denying others the same certainty you have (in the opposite direction, of course)?

 

[tsig]

delete

 

[Matthew Best]

A very curious question. Are you not absolutely convinced of her innocence? Are you denying others the same certainty you have (in the opposite direction, of course)?

As sceptics, naturally we are prepared to change our conclusions if new evidence is presented. We should be prepared to do the same if old evidence is excluded, as seems to be the case here.

 

[lionking]

As sceptics, naturally we are prepared to change our conclusions if new evidence is presented. We should be prepared to do the same if old evidence is excluded, as seems to be the case here.

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

 

[Draca]

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

Who said that? Do you have a cite for that?

Perhaps they said they would believe they are innocent despite the court's decision. That's not the same thing as evidence.

 

[Chris C]

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

What evidence?

 

[Draca]

Fuji,

I have asked a few people and never really had a satisfactory answer on this one, but what evidence do you base your believe in their guilt on? Thanks.

PhantomWolf,

If they won't answer you here, you could always go to them:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=340&start=2000

If I answered for them:
1. Conflicting statements and 'lies'.
2. 'Confession' and accusation of Patrick Lumumba
3. The 'staged' break in.
4. Knife, bra clasp and luminol footprints
5. Strange behavior

Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Kaosium]

halides,

Could you help clarify something?

Luminol found the footprints. Luminol reacts to many things like blood, bleach, rust.

About 240 different things that are commonly found in households.

Then a test for TMB was done. My understanding is that TMB is used as a presumptive blood test even though it isn't a test specifically for blood.

The TMB test was negative. There wouldn't be any reason to do a specific blood test after a negative TMB result right? Wouldn't a specific blood test only be done if the TMB test was postive?

Generally, however the argument for guilt goes that luminol is more sensitive to blood than the TMB test, luminol can detect blood in concentrations as low as 1:5M (five million) whereas TMB tests are only good to about 1:1M. Thus if the sample was highly diluted it is possible to get a positive with the luminol test and not with the TMB test. Blood is detectable to the human eye only in concentrations greater than 1:10K, (ten thousand) thus since these were invisible they were probably diluted to that extent.

This might be the next thing Harry Rag will be barfing throughout the ether, however it's yet another 'own goal' from the all-time master of the factual face-plant. Would you like me to tell you now what he's missing, or should we wait until he's scribbled it all over the comments sections of dozens of newspapers?

Steve Moore said in the Seattle U. panel that it was standard for luminol hits to be followed up with TMB to confirm if it was blood or not.

Just like ILE did as well, that's because the TMB test is more selective than luminol and a confirmatory test requires lab work to look at cells and/or crystals under the microscope.

Thanks halides,

This corresponds with what Steve Moore said about FBI procedures. In the FIELD, TMB is used on luminol hits to determine if there is blood present. If the reaction is negative testing stops there. If it is positive then samples are brought to the lab for further analysis. This is exactly what the Perugia Forensic team did.

Stefanoni lied, she used the TMB to test for blood. That TMB is not an official blood test is a technicality she used to say she didn't test the footprints for blood.

It's not a confirmatory test, it's a presumptive one. There were no confirmatory tests ever reported so either they didn't bother to do one, or they didn't like the results and pretended they hadn't.

Massei pg 257-258
"the negative result of the TMB test (tetramethylbenzidine) made it impossible to determine exactly what material had been analysed. She did, in any case, confirm that the profile of Knox had been found ("Certainly, Knox's genetic profile was found", page 79).

She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive, [276] and added that the acronym TMP indicated a colourimetric reaction which occurs in the presence of tetramethylbenzidine, which had been substituted for the carcinogenic benzidine; the presence of blood can be detected by means of this reaction."

Is Stefanoni claiming here that TMB is only 50% effective in detecting blood?

No, she's implying in her experience the TMB test is roughly twice as selective as applying luminol. Thus the TMB test eliminates about half the things that light up luminol.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I had a reply to my question 'Why do cops like framing people ?'

But the real pointy is 'what pleasure do they get out of it?' when they know they're wrong anyway. What's the point ? What good is there in it ? This is not the only case where cops have been framing people and enjoying the continual behaviour that type of attention to a crime-resolution involves.

I don't think that it is a case of liking to frame people. I believe that they genuinely believe that the person is guilty, in fact they believe it so much, that soon the only evidence that they can see either fits, or is made to fit the puzzle and as such further confirms their belief.

We see it a lot in the CT crowds, evidence is weighted with the bias of the viewer and even evidence that totally opposes the beliefs of the viewer are twisted about in such a way that they can be fitted into the narrative to support the beliefs.

Apparently once upon a time when gold was found in streams and many flocked to find their fortune, it was noted that as a prospector became more convinced that there was a vein of gold nearby he would switch from a position of looking for evidence of a vein being there to one where everything he looked at became evidence of the vein being there. This was termed "marrying the vein." This seems to be built into us and as scientists and skeptics we have to fight very hard against it, as even what we believe get skewed by our own beliefs and biases.

Unfortunately because it seems to be an inbuilt thing, all us humans suffer from it, including Policemen and Prosecutors. Also unfortunately, it would seem that in some cases there are people in these jobs who are willing to take shortcuts or push the results in the direction of their beliefs, after all, if you believe with absolute certainty that someone is guilty, where is the harm in pushing a DNA result, or covering up contamination, or planting a bullet casing that will shore up a poor prosecution. The person is clearly, in your mind, guilty, so a bit of extra help for the jury will help them out and get the guilty party off the street and in jail where they belong, especially when there is a lot of pressure to perform and get the person that did it.

Of course the harm comes when a person is in fact innocent and the police/prosecutor's beliefs have prevented them from seeing what might be obvious to a fresh set of eyes. Unfortunately this doesn't happen except for a few high profile cases, and often the legal system just carries on through the motions refusing to look outside the box that the prosecution built.

So as I say, I don't believe that even in this case that the police and prosecution set out to frame and wrongfully convict Amanda and Raffaele, from what I have read and looked at, I am coming to the belief that they truly believed that the pair were guilty, and everything that they have done since then has been to push the envelope in an attempt to show that. Yes they have crossed the line a number of times in that pursuit, but to me it looks like they genuinely believed in the pair’s guilt and thus considered that anything that was done was fair if it put a pair of murderers in jail. Their problem has been that in announcing with such confidence that they had their killers, and then having the case evaporate, instead of stepping back and re-evaluating, they charged ahead with their beliefs intact until they had painted themselves into a corner because of the cut corners.

At that point they really had nowhere to go except to carry on along the same path as they had already been taking from the start. Even now with the case again falling apart, they simply can’t backtrack because they are in so deep that to admit that they got it wrong will be a huge blow to both their own confidence, but also the credibility that they want the people of Perguia to have in them. As such, even if the court does say “Not Guilty” this time around, you can be sure that the prosecution and police will still declare that they had it right and that the Appeals Court got it wrong.

 

[Kaosium]

A very curious question. Are you not absolutely convinced of her innocence? Are you denying others the same certainty you have (in the opposite direction, of course)?

In a case where there's no evidence of murder when there should be had they committed the crime as prosecuted but the prosecution presented a 'mountain of disingenuous evidence' it is a rational proposition to conclude they didn't do it, or even that they might have done it, however those who are sure they did it are pretty much on the fringes of rationality in my view.

 

[Matthew Best]

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

I don't know who you're referring to, but LondonJohn is not one of those, I think. I'm fairly sure he's open to being convinced by new evidence, as am I.

Are you asking if any guilters will be changing their minds as the evidence gradually gets excluded, I wonder? As sceptics, naturally they would do so.

 

[LondonJohn]

A very curious question. Are you not absolutely convinced of her innocence? Are you denying others the same certainty you have (in the opposite direction, of course)?

Why is it a curious question? It seems like a perfectly reasonable and obvious question to me.

And no, I'm not absolutely convinced of Knox's (or Sollecito's) innocence at this stage. What I am pretty convinced about is their non-guilt.

And your question to me belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It's this: In order to believe Knox and/or Sollecito to be guilty of these crimes, one has to be essentially certain of their guilt. But in order to believe Knox and/or Sollecito to be not guilty, one doesn't need to be certain of their innocence. I'm still more than a little surprised that so many people can't seem to grasp this basic and important concept.

Still, I look forward to reading your post-hoc rationalisations if (when) Knox and Sollecito are acquitted by the end of the Summer

 

[Antony]

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

Such as who?

I think several people, including me, have stated that they will remain convinced of innocence regardless of the result of the appeal (unless it throws up startling new evidence, which seems unlikely). We have all made clear that that is because, for us, the evidence is more important than the opinion of the Italian courts.

You, in contrast, have stated the opposite.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's see if LondonJohn shares the same view. There are some innocentisti here who have stated that they will remain convinced that AK is innocent regardless of the evidence.

You're getting quite good at misrepresenting my position! Or is it what you'd like to believe my position is?

I've said before and I'll say it again: if good evidence is presented showing Knox's and/or Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I will readily change my opinion and subscribe fully to their guilt. I don't care personally whether they are guilty or not. Why should I care? I don't know them or any of their friends or family, and neither did I know Meredith Kercher or any of her family or friends.

I even gave specific examples earlier in these threads. If, for example, it really could be proven that the blood/water partial footprint on the bathmat was definitively Sollecito's, to the exclusion of any other male who had access to the house (including, of course, Guede), then I'd be heavily inclined to believe that Sollecito was guilty, and far more inclined to believe in Knox's guilt. Of course, in my view, Rinaldi's "professional" opinion on this issue - replete with bogus "millimetre accuracy" matching - is nothing more than biased pseudoscience produced to order. I fully expect his opinions to be rubbished and dismissed in the appeal - if things even get that far.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think that it is a case of liking to frame people. I believe that they genuinely believe that the person is guilty, in fact they believe it so much, that soon the only evidence that they can see either fits, or is made to fit the puzzle and as such further confirms their belief.

We see it a lot in the CT crowds, evidence is weighted with the bias of the viewer and even evidence that totally opposes the beliefs of the viewer are twisted about in such a way that they can be fitted into the narrative to support the beliefs.

Apparently once upon a time when gold was found in streams and many flocked to find their fortune, it was noted that as a prospector became more convinced that there was a vein of gold nearby he would switch from a position of looking for evidence of a vein being there to one where everything he looked at became evidence of the vein being there. This was termed "marrying the vein." This seems to be built into us and as scientists and skeptics we have to fight very hard against it, as even what we believe get skewed by our own beliefs and biases.

Unfortunately because it seems to be an inbuilt thing, all us humans suffer from it, including Policemen and Prosecutors. Also unfortunately, it would seem that in some cases there are people in these jobs who are willing to take shortcuts or push the results in the direction of their beliefs, after all, if you believe with absolute certainty that someone is guilty, where is the harm in pushing a DNA result, or covering up contamination, or planting a bullet casing that will shore up a poor prosecution. The person is clearly, in your mind, guilty, so a bit of extra help for the jury will help them out and get the guilty party off the street and in jail where they belong, especially when there is a lot of pressure to perform and get the person that did it.

Of course the harm comes when a person is in fact innocent and the police/prosecutor's beliefs have prevented them from seeing what might be obvious to a fresh set of eyes. Unfortunately this doesn't happen except for a few high profile cases, and often the legal system just carries on through the motions refusing to look outside the box that the prosecution built.

So as I say, I don't believe that even in this case that the police and prosecution set out to frame and wrongfully convict Amanda and Raffaele, from what I have read and looked at, I am coming to the belief that they truly believed that the pair were guilty, and everything that they have done since then has been to push the envelope in an attempt to show that. Yes they have crossed the line a number of times in that pursuit, but to me it looks like they genuinely believed in the pair’s guilt and thus considered that anything that was done was fair if it put a pair of murderers in jail. Their problem has been that in announcing with such confidence that they had their killers, and then having the case evaporate, instead of stepping back and re-evaluating, they charged ahead with their beliefs intact until they had painted themselves into a corner because of the cut corners.

At that point they really had nowhere to go except to carry on along the same path as they had already been taking from the start. Even now with the case again falling apart, they simply can’t backtrack because they are in so deep that to admit that they got it wrong will be a huge blow to both their own confidence, but also the credibility that they want the people of Perguia to have in them. As such, even if the court does say “Not Guilty” this time around, you can be sure that the prosecution and police will still declare that they had it right and that the Appeals Court got it wrong.

A great post, and one which mirrors my thinking pretty much exactly.