Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

About 240 different things that are commonly found in households.



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?




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.




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.



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.

Exactly. Standard practice is for confirmatory blood tests, such as these described in the link below, to be performed where presumptive tests have indicated the potential presence of human blood.

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject02/pdi_s02_m02_02_b.htm

There's simply no reason why such tests shouldn't/couldn't have been performed on the footprints, along with DNA testing, to show that human blood was present, and to identify the origin of that blood. There should have been more than enough material present to perform such tests.

 

[Draca]

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.

PhantomWolf,

They aren't that innocent. If they ever believed that AK and RS were guilty it was from their own incompetence. Their failure to re-evaluate after RG's DNA and palm print came back and Patrick Lumumba's alibi proved firm was their own fault. What they have done since then has been criminal. It goes way past confirmation bias.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

PhantomWolf,

They aren't that innocent. If they ever believed that AK and RS were guilty it was from their own incompetence. Their failure to re-evaluate after RG's DNA and palm print came back and Patrick Lumumba's alibi proved firm was their own fault. What they have done since then has been criminal. It goes way past confirmation bias.

While I agree to an extent, as the guilters are fond on pointing out, if the police had set out to frame Knox and Sollecito at the outset they could have done a much better job.

It looks to me far more like confirmation bias led the PLE to certainty in Knox and Sollecito's guilt, and that combined with a lack of ethics led the PLE to destroy exculpatory evidence and gin up some individual pieces of incriminating evidence just to sweeten the case a little.

 

[Kaosium]

Fair enough. What is in the public domain that was presented at trial? Amanda's testimony and some photos. That's it. What else do we have that isn't second hand? Her email alibi, RS's prison diary, the Massei Report and the motivations report on RG's trial. That's it. At least 90 witnesses testified and except for Amanda's no one who wasn't present at the trial knows exactually what they testified to. Add on top of that all the forensic and technical reports. Who on this forum has read those?

How much do you really know and how much do you think you know?

Sorry, missed your reply in transit initially. I think the reports we have of the mundane testimony is good enough, a lot of those people were testifying to things like Meredith's complaints of Amanda's gag-gift, that Curatolo lived on the park bench and the like. There's also more information available than you listed, especially all the crime scene photos and videos, the electropherograms, the Michaeli Report, and translated conversations on their tapped phones. There's a lot of information available in this instance, and the additional information that can be found in the transcripts will be perused in the future for indications of guilt alright, but not that of Raffaele and Amanda...

 

[RoseMontague]

Sorry, missed your reply in transit initially. I think the reports we have of the mundane testimony is good enough, a lot of those people were testifying to things like Meredith's complaints of Amanda's gag-gift, that Curatolo lived on the park bench and the like. There's also more information available than you listed, especially all the crime scene photos and videos, the electropherograms, the Michaeli Report, and translated conversations on their tapped phones. There's a lot of information available in this instance, and the additional information that can be found in the transcripts will be perused in the future for indications of guilt alright, but not that of Raffaele and Amanda...

I agree. There were reporters present every day in court and there exists some reporting from various sources of at least a summary or highlight of the testimony. Alt-F4's point only makes sense if we assume that something important was not reported on and not included in the various judges reports outlining what evidence and testimony was presented that convinced them of guilt. The fact that Alt-F4 and others bring this argument forward at all tells me they have difficulty finding evidence of guilt in what we do have and since they are guilty there must be some super secret evidence of guilt not covered or mentioned by anyone.

 

[quadraginta]

I agree. There were reporters present every day in court and there exists some reporting from various sources of at least a summary or highlight of the testimony. Alt-F4's point only makes sense if we assume that something important was not reported on and not included in the various judges reports outlining what evidence and testimony was presented that convinced them of guilt. The fact that Alt-F4 and others bring this argument forward at all tells me they have difficulty finding evidence of guilt in what we do have and since they are guilty there must be some super secret evidence of guilt not covered or mentioned by anyone.

Would this be the same press that has been being so roundly castigated in these threads for their prejudicial POV that the entire Italian judicial system was condemned for not sequestering the jury?

Seems awfully convenient that they can be both evil spinmeisters intent on painting the worst possible picture of Knox's guilt while simultaneously being a meticulously comprehensive chronicler of her innocence.

Quite a tribute to the press.

 

[RoseMontague]

Would this be the same press that has been being so roundly castigated in these threads for their prejudicial POV that the entire Italian judicial system was condemned for not sequestering the jury?

Seems awfully convenient that they can be both evil spinmeisters intent on painting the worst possible picture of Knox's guilt while simultaneously being a meticulously comprehensive chronicler of her innocence.

Quite a tribute to the press.

I am not sure how the statement "there exists some reporting from various sources of at least a summary or highlight of the testimony" constitutes a "tribute to the press". The testimony can be fact checked against the Massei report as well as other "various" reports from the same hearing, especially if one source presents something different from another.

BTW, I was surprised to see an actual opinion from you yesterday, one that surprises me. What exactly convinced you that Amanda is a "sociopath"?

 

[quadraginta]

I am not sure how the statement "there exists some reporting from various sources of at least a summary or highlight of the testimony" constitutes a "tribute to the press". The testimony can be fact checked against the Massei report as well as other "various" reports from the same hearing, especially if one source presents something different from another.

BTW, I was surprised to see an actual opinion from you yesterday, one that surprises me. What exactly convinced you that Amanda is a "sociopath"?

Nothing.

Sometimes I can't resist the temptation to poke the hornets' nest.

Mea culpa and all that stuff.

 

[christianahannah]

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?

I think this is Dr. Sarah Gino's testimony and not Dr. Stefanoni's.

 

[snook1]

What evidence?

That made my day and summed up Alt+F4's efforts very well. Thanks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

taking the starch out of PM Mignini's shirt

To all,

I don't have much time today. But I think that bleach will oxidize starch under certain conditions. Therefore, I wonder if the presence of starch does not disfavor the hypothesis that the knife was cleaned with bleach. I am not saying any definite at the moment, however.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt-F4's point only makes sense if we assume that something important was not reported on and not included in the various judges reports outlining what evidence and testimony was presented that convinced them of guilt.

How about the fact that it's now it's being claimed that Nara Capazielli is "nearly deaf" and "nuts"? I think that's pretty important and this was not reported on when she testified or included in the various judges reports.

Paul Ciolino discussed meeting Nara’s niece, who incidentally lived in the apartment above Nara, and confirmed Nara’s unreliability, telling Ciolino that Nara “hasn’t been out of the house in ten years, she’s nuts. When her husband died she lost it and we have to take care of her and she’s mentally ill and she got hospitalized a bunch of times and she’s nice and she’s harmless….but she’s crazy.” Ciolino emphasized, “And this is from her niece and nephew who live in the building and take care of her."

Link:
http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Head-of-Rome-Police-in-Amanda-Knox-Case-I-knew-she/2937867

So which is it? Do you know?

 

[Fuji]

The judge's name is Hellmann. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann.

And yes, we'll certainly see who the deluded / over-invested ones are

Well, if you're certain that the Judge spells his surname "Hellmann", you'd best be on to the Telegraph and have them correct their error. They've apparently been misspelling his name for several months now.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

How do you feel about Rudi Guede's sentence? How do you feel about the fact that the prosecution did not appeal his sentence reduction (at the appeal level) to the supreme court?

I am not happy at all with the length of Guede's sentence, as I feel that murderers should be inarcerated for life. I am not aware of the particulars of the prosecution's decisions regarding the appeal of Guede's sentence, and so I would prefer not to comment on that.

 

[Fuji]

Ya that was great. Your humor is about as funny as Tim Pawlenty's.

Oh, snap! And who was the master wordsmith who penned your devastating comeback - Ron Palillo?

 

[Fuji]

Why do you find it "unfortunate"? Would you find it "nauseating" if in fact the second court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to convict?

I find the idea of a convicted murderer walking out of prison as a free citizen, having only been incarcerated for a decade or so, to be both unfortunate and nauseating. If Hellman's court acquits the pair, I would find that surprising, rather than nauseating.

What are your views on the function and role of a modern criminal justice system? Do you think people should be found guilty and imprisoned, even if the case against them cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - regardless of whether they committed the crime or not?*

No. That said, I can still find it regrettable on a personal level if someone, in my estimation, escapes justice. I hardly think that this is a unique viewpoint.

Are you a fan of the Salem witch trials?

Sure, the costumes were great.

Seriously - what kind of a response do you expect to a question like that?

* Because, in a modern criminal justice system...

Next time, please spare me the condescending lecture.

 

[Fuji]

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.

Hi PhantomWolf.

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Kestrel]

Hi PhantomWolf.

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

It really bothers me that finding DNA of a suspect in her own bathroom is considered evidence that she participated in a crime. Yet that is exactly what the Perugia prosecution claimed.

Perhaps it's a symptom of watching too many TV crime dramas where the technicians never find fingerprints or DNA from people not involved in the crime.

It's also clear that you believe that roughing up people gets them to tell the truth. Slap them around and Jesus will make them admit to their sins. It's a deeply ingrained tradition in human culture.

Or perhaps you still believe that the all night interrogation was noting but kind words, tea and cakes. After all, police never lie. They always tell the truth. They just "forgot" to record the nice talk they had with Amanda. All those other reports that Italian cops use physical force to intimidate witnesses must be lies.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think the reports we have of the mundane testimony is good enough,

Personally, I don't think "good enough" cuts it when we are talking about people doing decades in prison. Did you know that there were at least five different words reported to describe Nara's description of the scream she said she heard? I think it's important to know exactly what she said, not what other said she said.

Is she "nuts" and "nearly deaf"? None of the "mundane testiomny" mentioned this, yet this is what the defense in now claiming. So either she is "nuts" and "nearly deaf" which wasn't reported on anywhere, or the defense is making up lies.

...especially all the crime scene photos and videos,...

Who has seen all the crime scene photos and videos? How do you know which of them were submitted into evidence?

 

[Dan O.]

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

What tells you personally that the scene was staged? If you know for a fact that the scene was staged then you must have some idea for how the staging was done. How did all that glass get spread through Filomena's room including under the clothes?

Have you ever tried to chronicle the different stories/alibis? Do you have a list of each version and the chain of people that heard/recorded/retold it?

Same for the lies that you claim they made. And how do each of those lies benefit them?

Again for the accusation against Lumumba, what is the path by which you hear of this? Don't forget to include those making translations.

That genetic evidence is falling apart. Do you still think it has any importance at all? If your DNA is found in your bathroom, on the floor in your house or on a knife in your kitchen drawer, would you believe that to be evidence of your involvement in a murder?


And how are you going to reconcile your belief when the fact that Raffaele could not have been there because he was on his computer continuously until 6:02 the next morning is proven through the computer records? And Raffaele has maintained that Amanda was there with him (except that she could have slipped out after he went to sleep after 6:02 in the morning!).

Of course, I predict that your first response will be to deny that such proof exists.