Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Yes the (mushroom) is the anomoly, but its seems people try to use the mushroom to hide the fact there is nothing in the duodenum and the contents of the pizza are still in the stomach. The (mushroom) is meaningless IMO, because the empty duodenum tells the whole story.

Absolutely true. And in fact the presence of this food matter in the oesophagus (whether it's undigested mushroom or semi-digested apple) is further indication that Meredith died close to 9pm.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, I tend to agree. I think that Lalli would have had to be quite remiss to mistakenly identify a piece of apple as a piece of mushroom. That's why I still think it's fairly likely that Meredith went to the fridge when she got in (either before or after dumping her bag in her room), and took a mushroom from the packet in the fridge. I think that Guede confronted and attacked her very shortly afterwards, causing the mushroom to regurgitate from the cardia back up into the oesophagus.

But clearly there is still a strong and legitimate reason to perform a specific test on this food fragment (if it - or any portion of it - still exists) to identify it definitively.

Here's another mushroom quote from Massei:

...the presence of a fragment of mushroom in the opening of the lower stretch of oesophagus was confirmed [by Dr. Lalli], thus in a state of non-digestion...

I think Bacci's comment on the state of digestion refers on the one hand to the food fragment being solid and not yet broken down into liquid, and on the other to its location in the oesophagus. I don't think it means the fragment was in a different state of digestion to everything else in Meredith's stomach (or not necessarily anyway), and in fact I doubt Bacci would have been in a position to know that since I don't think he had access to the mushroom to test it (from memory, the experts were just given a proportion of the stomach contents to test).

As for Lalli, it sounds as if his identification of the fragment as a mushroom was done on sight during the autopsy, not through later analysis umder the microscope, so I do think it could be possible he misidentified it. But who knows...

 

[Dan O.]

I posted a photo of the mushrooms in the last thread. PMF grabbed it, so it's in their gallery under crime scene photos.

Here it is. The mushrooms are in the green carton:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664debd7ed88888.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks. I should have looked closer at that photo the first time you posted it.

It looks like there are two varieties of mushrooms there. A common white button in the blue container and something larger, perhaps Portobello in the green container. Someone in that house is a connoisseur.

Meredith was probably thinking all the way home how uncivilized her english friends were for serving pizza without mushrooms. She would have remedied that shortly after getting home by grabbing a snack from the fridge.

Of course, this is just speculation since the fragment has not been tested to confirm it is in fact mushroom.

 

[Kaosium]

Bluestar's luminol preparation has been around since 2000 and Hemaglow's since before 1997 since that is the date of the paper discussing it. I don't think you have any basis to say it was not either of these products which were used. If in fact you do, please post it.

It doesn't actually matter that much.

What the TMB test does, along with common sense forensic methods (a perfectly square 'hit' is highly likely to be where a lamp's metal base sat for years, causing some of the metal to adhere to the floor as opposed to it being blood which just happened to 'pool' in a perfect square) is winnow out the non-blood hits, as TMB is more selective than luminol which lights up everything. It doesn't matter if it's 250 from that one study, or less with Hemaglow or Bluestar so they can sell more of their luminol-like product.

If ILE is using the TMB test it suggests they know this too ( ) as does the FBI which does the same thing. Spray down the scene with luminol, look for the ones whose shape and position suggest they might be blood, and then apply the TMB test which will help verify it. Then they take it to the lab and someone looks at it under the scope and confirms it.

In this case they tried to say they sprayed the luminol, and noted a distinctive CL pattern generally only found with blood and stuff that contains about eight certain metal and vegetable components, (which is a lot more than eight total things if you think about it!) and then when the TMB test was negative they stopped, it not being blood as a negative is a (virtual) absolute. Blood was not 'proven'--period. However, they later didn't reveal the negative TMB test and Comodi tried to pretend it was still possible it was blood, 'or it could be turnip juice, you decide.' This is known as being deceptive in my view, though it's possible being a lawyer who didn't know better that someone fed her that line because it sure makes it sound like it's more possible it was blood, doesn't it?

Now there is a way you can get a positive hit with luminol and a negative one with TMB, and that's if the dilution of the blood is below the 1:1M level, as luminol can detect at extremity blood down to concentrations as low as 1:5M. Thus perhaps it was diluted so much so that TMB couldn't pick it up but luminol could. Maybe it could still be blood, you might be thinking! Nope, because if it is diluted to that extreme you don't get that distinctive pattern, which should be common sense, however it has to do with the reageants in the luminol-based product having only a tiny fraction of things to catalyze with to give off that cool glow.

So if Stefanoni saw that distinctive pattern then the concentration of the blood was undiluted enough that the TMB negative proves it wasn't blood. If she lied and didn't see that pattern and the lynch mob is trying to say that maybe the blood was so diluted it fell between 1:1M and 1:5M, the extremes of the presumptive tests, then we have to deal with the following conditions that must be true as well:

1. They're not related to anything after the murder like Amanda taking her shower and stepping in highly diluted blood that seeped from the bathmat stain.

2. Amanda was barefoot during the murder or shortly afterward.

3. They're actually Amanda's (and Raffaele's) bare footprints being as they weren't compared to anyone else.

4. It's possible to determine with those fuzzy photos it's actually Amanda's foot anyway.

5. They're not related to anything before the murder like one of the girls stepping in massively diluted menstrual or earring blood.

6. Amanda was dancing crazily after the murder.

7. Amanda was in the murder room without leaving any trace of her presence and never left any trail to get to the one where she has to be walking backwards.

8. The cops can be trusted after the fact we know they lied about this and other things, maybe they're Stefanoni or Napoleoni's footprints?

9. Every other indication that Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved must be false, including the recovered computer records.

Being as at this point you're beyond the realm of rational possibility, all I have to ask is why are you stooping to this level to call Stefanoni a liar? That's not very nice!

The only thing those luminol footprints (help) prove is there was no clean-up in the hall.

 

[Kaosium]

How can anyone claim that Mignini's ludicrous "excuse" of budgetary problems leading to the non-recording of the interrogations on the 5th/6th November 2007 (in a regional police HQ where I suspect every single interview room has recording equipment permanently present) has any validity?

I would invite the people accepting this "excuse" to ask where Mignini and the police found the budgetary resources to tap Knox's and Sollecito's mobile phones from about 3rd-5th November 2007 - which would have had to have involved someone employed listening to those recordings and transcribing them. Yet we're supposed to believe that "budgetary constraints" meant that the same police couldn't afford a cassette tape?

Which they could probably get by beating some kids up for their lunch money down the street. Then file a calunnia charge on them when they cried about it to their mommies.

This "budgetary constraints" nonsense therefore not only exposes Mignini very badly indeed, but it also exposes those who seem to accept this explanation without (seemingly) a shred of critical reasoning.

To add to this, a poster here asked Frank Sfarzo, who to his misfortune has been there, said the cops had to have been something to the effect of 'drunk or drugged' if they actually failed to tape that interrogation. This definitely implies to me that there's cameras in there, which would also follow from Giobbi the 'master' of the behavioral sciences thinking that's all he needs to do in order to determine guilt. As he's in the control room and hears Amanda scream, and he had both Raffaele and Amanda show up so he could study their behavior at the same time, and they weren't in the same room, you gotta kinda figure he was watching them both on a CCTV screen.

Now if for some reason this isn't true, and Barbie Nadeau who's lived there was mistaken about them showing all those interrogations on TV including the creepy dude in the Scazzi case, then is Mignini saying that they take people into those backrooms all the time without cameras? This police force so known for its genteelness in Genoa, which ranks 16th out of seventeen listed democracies regarding their people's willingness to report crimes to them? (with Japan I would guess that's cultural--embarrassment to have to report one) Where any criticism or suggestion of impropriety can be met with suits or charges like in the case of those eight reporters, Amanda and Raffaele and their families, and the poor woman who 'dared' call them felons after they killed her son in custody?

If that's the case, there are no cameras, then what would have happened next if Amanda hadn't broke down when they started whupping her upside the head?

 

[Danceme]

I'm interested in why you think that merely because these proprietary products (both of which, incidentally, are not luminol) had been available for some time before the Kercher murder, one or other of them would have been used by the forensic teams examining the case.

I see it much like the term bandaid, universally used to describe a self-adhesive wound covering (at least in North America) yet it is a trademarked brand name and really only refers to one product
Luminol is the term used instead of saying Bluestar Forensic or Hemaglow, as they are both luminol based and work similarly in terms of chemiluminescence yet are easier to use, more stable, less toxic and longer lasting than the preparation known as Luminol.

If you want, I can post every reference to the word "luminol" in the Massei report (there are more than 50 of them...) as proof. "Luminol" is itself a brand name for the chemical 5-Amino-2,3-dihydro-1,4-phthalazinedione. And, I reiterate, neither Hemaglow nor Bluestar is a form of luminol - and as such neither product would be referred to as luminol by forensics specialists.

You're incorrect on this. Their own websites describe these products as "luminol based", and I would hazard a guess that both Bluestar and Hemaglow are colloquially referred to as luminol often enough, just as a self-adhesive wound covering is colloquially referred to as a bandaid. But go ahead, prove me wrong, I know you want to.

I therefore conclude that the substance used by the forensic investigators in the Kercher case was luminol - and not one of the more effective products that have appeared on the market since luminol's shortcomings were identified and exposed. Got any decent evidence to refute that?

"I therefore conclude...." what are you, writing a dissertation? I would think your conclusion says it all, "more effective products that have appeared on the market" and which we know have been around for quite some time now, so in all likelihood have replaced actual luminol as the product of choice in crime scene investigations. Wait I forgot, Italy is much too backward to use anything marketed any decade recently so you must be right and luminol it was!

Danceme,

Don't you find it odd that Massei refers to this untested piece of food as a piece of mushroom when it is untested? Shouldn't it be called the unknown food fragment instead.

It's possible MK had a mushroom after she arrived home. I find it unacceptable that this piece was not tested, especially after the defense requested it to be tested. I also find it confusing that it is referred to as similar to other pieces already in her stomach in an appeal and also as an anomoly by Massei.

I wish Hellmann would just approve the test already! Although, I don't see it making a huge difference if she had a mushroom when she arrived home or not.

I think it's referred to as a mushroom because Dr. Lalli described it as probably being a mushroom. I suppose it could have been apple but as LJ pointed out earlier the cell structure and texture would be quite different.
I don't see confirmation either way making any bit of difference so I wouldn't be surprised if Hellmann did not feel this test was necessary.

Yes the (mushroom) is the anomoly, but its seems people try to use the mushroom to hide the fact there is nothing in the duodenum and the contents of the pizza are still in the stomach. The (mushroom) is meaningless IMO, because the empty duodenum tells the whole story.

I've never seen anyone use the mushroom in this way Chris, ever. Most view it as an anomaly with nothing to do with the earlier meal.

 

[odeed]

I'm interested in why you think that merely because these proprietary products (both of which, incidentally, are not luminol) had been available for some time before the Kercher murder, one or other of them would have been used by the forensic teams examining the case.

If you want, I can post every reference to the word "luminol" in the Massei report (there are more than 50 of them...) as proof. "Luminol" is itself a brand name for the chemical 5-Amino-2,3-dihydro-1,4-phthalazinedione. And, I reiterate, neither Hemaglow nor Bluestar is a form of luminol - and as such neither product would be referred to as luminol by forensics specialists.

I therefore conclude that the substance used by the forensic investigators in the Kercher case was luminol - and not one of the more effective products that have appeared on the market since luminol's shortcomings were identified and exposed. Got any decent evidence to refute that?

Both Hemaglow™ and Bluestar® are both commercial products based on luminol.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see it much like the term bandaid, universally used to describe a self-adhesive wound covering (at least in North America) yet it is a trademarked brand name and really only refers to one product
Luminol is the term used instead of saying Bluestar Forensic or Hemaglow, as they are both luminol based and work similarly in terms of chemiluminescence yet are easier to use, more stable, less toxic and longer lasting than the preparation known as Luminol.

On what exactly do you base this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that luminol is used by anyone, let alone courts, as a shorthand for all chemiluminescent forensic chemicals?

Or is this purely wishful thinking?

You're incorrect on this. Their own websites describe these products as "luminol based", and I would hazard a guess that both Bluestar and Hemaglow are colloquially referred to as luminol often enough, just as a self-adhesive wound covering is colloquially referred to as a bandaid. But go ahead, prove me wrong, I know you want to.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You can't just make up the idea that "luminol" is a generic term for all such chemicals and demand that other people disprove it. Or rather you can, and you will, but it's meaningless. It proves nothing except that you have a vivid imagination.

What you need to do is go and get some evidence. Evidence matters. Wishful thinking doesn't.

 

[Mary_H]

How can anyone claim that Mignini's ludicrous "excuse" of budgetary problems leading to the non-recording of the interrogations on the 5th/6th November 2007 (in a regional police HQ where I suspect every single interview room has recording equipment permanently present) has any validity?

I would invite the people accepting this "excuse" to ask where Mignini and the police found the budgetary resources to tap Knox's and Sollecito's mobile phones from about 3rd-5th November 2007 - which would have had to have involved someone employed listening to those recordings and transcribing them. Yet we're supposed to believe that "budgetary constraints" meant that the same police couldn't afford a cassette tape?

This "budgetary constraints" nonsense therefore not only exposes Mignini very badly indeed, but it also exposes those who seem to accept this explanation without (seemingly) a shred of critical reasoning.

No cassette tape necessary. Someone put up a photo here months ago showing Mignini standing outside the cottage on the day after the murder, mini digital recorder in hand.

 

[odeed]

On what exactly do you base this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that luminol is used by anyone, let alone courts, as a shorthand for all chemiluminescent forensic chemicals?

Or is this purely wishful thinking?



Your claim, your burden of proof.

You can't just make up the idea that "luminol" is a generic term for all such chemicals and demand that other people disprove it. Or rather you can, and you will, but it's meaningless. It proves nothing except that you have a vivid imagination.

What you need to do is go and get some evidence. Evidence matters. Wishful thinking doesn't.

"Luminol (test)" is a generic term as used, as luminol can be applied to crime scenes using the Grodsky formula, Webber (I and II) formula, or in the commercial products mentioned.

Bluestar is similar as the Webber formula except the hydrogen peroxide is in tablet form (50-100%) rather than diluted in distilled water.

 

[zeb]

mushroom

Thanks. I should have looked closer at that photo the first time you posted it.

It looks like there are two varieties of mushrooms there. A common white button in the blue container and something larger, perhaps Portobello in the green container. Someone in that house is a connoisseur.

Meredith was probably thinking all the way home how uncivilized her english friends were for serving pizza without mushrooms. She would have remedied that shortly after getting home by grabbing a snack from the fridge.

Of course, this is just speculation since the fragment has not been tested to confirm it is in fact mushroom.

Dan 0
I have never heard of a person eating a rawl mushroom, well not in england.
I have a member of my family, who has been a veggi, from brith, and I am not jokeing on that, she would not eat meat, from one year old.
I do not think that the contents, was of a mushroom, it was partly, apple, or, a tomato, mushroom no, way.
Mushrooms has to be cooked before eatiing them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Mushrooms has to be cooked before eatiing them.

Raw mushrooms are nice, especially in salads. Just need a good wash.

 

[Kaosium]

Both Hemaglow™ and Bluestar® are both commercial products based on luminol.

I see it much like the term bandaid, universally used to describe a self-adhesive wound covering (at least in North America) yet it is a trademarked brand name and really only refers to one product
Luminol is the term used instead of saying Bluestar Forensic or Hemaglow, as they are both luminol based and work similarly in terms of chemiluminescence yet are easier to use, more stable, less toxic and longer lasting than the preparation known as Luminol.


You're incorrect on this. Their own websites describe these products as "luminol based", and I would hazard a guess that both Bluestar and Hemaglow are colloquially referred to as luminol often enough, just as a self-adhesive wound covering is colloquially referred to as a bandaid. But go ahead, prove me wrong, I know you want to.

You know, you guys might just be walking right into one.

He posted the chemical composition or whatever you call it, with those letters and numbers referring to like protons and electrons in orbit? Something about valences? I may think of hemaglow and bluestar as just adding gunk to luminol, but I do know that when you do stuff like that it can change those letters and numbers and some people take that very seriously. Like if you do something sinister to H2O you end up with H3O and it's not quite the same thing and they call it something different. I dunno for sure, but the bottom two paragraphs here look mighty sinister to me...

At any rate I thought both of you were supposed to have backgrounds in these sciences, certainly more recently than I took this stuff! I find it very interesting that a big deal is being made about this, because one thing I do know is it doesn't matter a whit. I said TMB is more selective than luminol, because it is. I also know there's one study that compared a buncha things that didn't give off false positives with luminol with stuff that did for TMB and it was proclaimed throughout the land that luminol was more selective than TMB! Luminol Uber Alles!

However I also found that there were lots more studies and manuals that said the opposite, and if I had a nasty suspicious mind I might think the Tobe et al study was commissioned by someone who wanted to make luminol look good so people might buy more of it. I didn't bother to link them as my post was listing about forty degrees to starboard from all the links already and I was afraid it might capsize with more html, and frankly I was tired of typing 'url yadadada' because it doesn't matter in the slightest!

They used them both, because regardless of whichever is more selective, neither of them gives false negatives so the combination of both, whether it's Luminol, Hemaglow, or Bluestar used first because you can just spray it on and turn out the lights and look for the pretty colors, and TMB will partially eliminate non-blood hits, making for less labwork for the guys in the white coats making the big bucks.

You see there's different things either eliminates, so the both together--regardless of which is more selective--makes the job easier for the pointy-heads. This is important to the grunts out in the field because they don't like to hear those guys whine about having to do too much 'work' sitting on their asses in front of a microscope. Even cooler, as long as the stain is not impossibly aged, and above a concentration of 1:1M, there's no chance you'll miss a positive hit, as all you're doing is eliminating things that cannot be blood! Awesome, isn't it?

Now, I figured this out because I didn't go out and look for one link to support my contentions, I went and read all of Machiavelli's links, about ten or so, and then went out and read about a dozen more. Boy did that suck! Some of them had pages in double digits! You see, one of the reasons I hated this subject is plain old 'English' isn't good enough for them. They use something I call 'bio-speak.' That's when you take elements of Greek and Latin and smush it all together and make one butt-ugly word that looks about the same as the next jawbreaker. They must have been paying these guys by the letter when they invented these 'words' as if you find one with less than a dozen letters you know something is wrong! There's no drama or poetry to them at all, they're mercilessly clinical and it's almost like they were trying to see if they could find one entirely unpronounceable by human vocal chords. I thought norepinephrine was a pain in the ass, that's morning crumpets for these guys!

Thus, if I had a nasty suspicious mind, I might think someone with one of these brilliant scientific minds and recent education in these stultifying topics went out and found one link; one that said something that looked like it was relevant to the subject at hand and maybe didn't even read the whole one page paper they found. Silly ol' me figured I had to read as much as I could to actually figure out what the subject entailed, as one little link might not be representative of the whole and there's usually more to the story.

I dunno fer sure about all those fancy letters and numbers which I think of as adding gunk, but I'm thinking if he's right there might be a lecture in someone's future...

 

[Mary_H]

Raw mushrooms are nice, especially in salads. Just need a good wash.

Yep, we eat 'em raw in the US, too, zeb. However, as you note, Meredith was British...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Luminol (test)" is a generic term as used, as luminol can be applied to crime scenes using the Grodsky formula, Webber (I and II) formula, or in the commercial products mentioned.

Bluestar is similar as the Webber formula except the hydrogen peroxide is in tablet form (50-100%) rather than diluted in distilled water.

Where are you getting this from? What is the source for the claim that "luminol" is used as a generic term for all of these various chemicals?

Simply repeating as claimed fact what Danceme speculated isn't actually an improvement. We still need some evidence for this claim.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Dan 0
I have never heard of a person eating a rawl mushroom, well not in england.
I have a member of my family, who has been a veggi, from brith, and I am not jokeing on that, she would not eat meat, from one year old.
I do not think that the contents, was of a mushroom, it was partly, apple, or, a tomato, mushroom no, way.
Mushrooms has to be cooked before eatiing them.

People eat raw mushrooms all the time.

 

[Mary_H]

Can someone answer this question, I cannot for me under stand, why the police mess up the house, after, all people lived there, and the pictures that I saw upstairs before, was it was very neat, and tidy.
The after pictures when police have been though the house was a mess, avery big mess.
I can under stand, police going through Meredith room, with a toothbrush, and that goes for the same with Amanda bedroom, even with Filomena bedroom, but why did the police left it a very big mess.

Can anyone link zeb to that video of the cops packing Meredith's suitcase? Be prepared, though, zeb; it should be rated H for Horrifying.

 

[Rolfe]

I have never heard of a person eating a rawl mushroom, well not in england.

Mushrooms has to be cooked before eatiing them.

Rubbish. I'm not English but I am British and I lived in England for 25 years. I'm very fond of raw mushroom and if I have a pack in the fridge might easily pick one up and eat it. I serve raw sliced mushroom in salads and I'm very guilty of popping a piece or two in my mouth while I'm preparing that. Even if I'm cooking mushrooms, I'm likely to pop a piece of raw mushroom in my mouth during the preparation.

Raw mushroom is nice, you should try it some time.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Somehow I doubt even those hypocrites would be able to explain some alibi.



(Okay, I'm done with the one-line retorts - I promise!)

I'd really like to know what this post, and the one you responded to, has to do with the subject of this thread.

 

[zeb]

Rubbish. I'm not English but I am British and I lived in England for 25 years. I'm very fond of raw mushroom and if I have a pack in the fridge might easily pick one up and eat it. I serve raw sliced mushroom in salads and I'm very guilty of popping a piece or two in my mouth while I'm preparing that. Even if I'm cooking mushrooms, I'm likely to pop a piece of raw mushroom in my mouth during the preparation.

Raw mushroom is nice, you should try it some time.

Rolfe.

Will do.
That will be something new to me, give it a try.